Tommy Sheridan Wins

by Old Friend Fri Aug 04, 2006 17:26

Well done Tommy on your victory. I hope now that all the liars who tried to use the most disgusting slanders against you will have been exposed and are dealt with accordingly by the membership of the SSP - kick them out - McCoombes, Fox and the rest.

by Strategist Fri Aug 04, 2006 17:40

An earlier indymedia.ie article laid out some of the covert struggling going on behind this court case at the link below. It suggests that the SWP are going to come out of this with the upper hand:

by Eamon Fri Aug 04, 2006 22:28

tommy Sheridan' s victory in the libel courts changes nothing as far as I'm concerned.
I often place little store by the decisions of the capitalist courts and today's decision in the Sheridan libel case is no exception.

Unlike many of the posters on this subject--and particularly those who belong to the SP/CWI, who did not have an SSP EC rep in November 2004, and have no knowledge of what happened at the EC meeting on the 9th of that month, I have spoken to several EC members who attended that meeting. In addition to the 10 or so who were forced to come to court and who testified that Sheridan lied, I personally know another 4 who agree with that.

I believe them. And I think that Sheridan's tactic of publicly calling thse people liars was an utter disgrace.

Nothing good will come of this decision. Sheridan, in the way he decided to fight this case has shown that he is without scruple. His position in the SSP will now be stronger, but in all honesty, what kind of socialist movement will be built by a man like that?

But I am sure that the United Left faction will keep fighting--they are the only ones who have told the truth throughout this sorry business, and offer the only hope for the building of a socialist movement in Scotland

by SP Member - Socialist Party/CWI Fri Aug 04, 2006 23:02

The above post by Eamon is nothing more than sour grapes. Any socialist worth his/her salt should have given Sheridan 100% support in this court case. Anytime a socialist goes up against the anti-worker, anti-women, anti-socialist reactionary rag that the NOTW is they must be supported.

The crazy notion that somehow the interests of the SSP would be best served by Sheridan losing, indicates more how personal feelings rather than political reality now dictate conflict in the SSP.

The statements issued by the 'United Left' faction and by MSP's Curran, Leckie and Kane, in the aftermath of Sheridan's victory are an absolute disgrace and demonstrate unbridled hatred for Sheridan and a total disregard for the future of the SSP. To now claim that Sheridan lied through his teeth to win the case clearly demonstrates that they have no interest in attempting to heal any divisions within the SSP and attempting to salvage what is left of the SSP.

It now appears inevitable that the SSP will split down the middle. The end result will be that possibly only Sheridan will be re-elected to the Scottish parliament and all the good work that the SSP has engaged in over the past few years will be undone.

The responsibility for this debacle lies firmly at the feet of the McCoombs faction. Sheridan's personal life should never have been discussed at the SSP EC. When it was no minute should have been recorded. When Sheridan went ahead with his declared intention of pursuing the libel case the minute should have been immediately destroyed. The existance of the minute and its contents should never have been leaked by a leading member of the anti-Sheridan faction. Members of the SSP EC should never have taken the stand to give evidence on behalf of the NOTW.

McCoombs and others played a tactical game designed to remove Sheridan from the SSP and it blew up in their faces - big time. They have done the working class of Scotland an enormous disservice.

by Wallace Fri Aug 04, 2006 23:39

You are welcome to Tommy and his gang of stone age bams. You , that is, and the SWP. As Ali G. would say: Respect!

by Eamon Sat Aug 05, 2006 09:27

Once more SP member reveals the oppportunism that lies at the heart of his factions's position on the sheridan issue.

It matters nothing to SP member that Sheridan, in advancing his case, was compelled to accuse at least 10 SSP EC members of lying.

It matters nothing that these individuals, having told the truth about what took place at a meeting of the SSP EC on 9 November 2004--and, yes, SP member, they did tell the truth--could, as a result of Sheridan's actions, now face possible perjury proceedings.

It matters nothing to SP member that Sheridan did this in order to prevent the truth about his personal life coming out. That is, he effectively destroyed a socialist party, in order to pass himself off as a family man who would never cheat on his wife.

It matters nothing to SP member that Tommy Sheridan has done all of this, because SP master strategist Peter Taaffe has decided that it would suit the SP if the SSP in its present format, with its present leadership, were to fall apart.

Cynical isn't a strong enough word to describe the CWI position on this question.

by Francis McCafferty - Socialist Party Sat Aug 05, 2006 09:34

SP member is wrong. The responsibility for this sorry, squalid debacle does not lie with the 'McCoombes faction'. The responsbility is Sheridan's alone.

Bear in mind, Sheridan has not won anything. I see on BBC Scotland tonight that the NOTW are defintely going to appeal. Also the judge made it clear in summing up that at the end of the trial, there would have to be a criminal investigation into the widely differing testimonies of SSP members. This trial has inflicted huge damage on the SSP and unfortunately there is more to come.

It is nonsense to suggest that a minute should not have been kept of the EC meeting. Presumably it is standard practise to take minutes of SSP EC meetings, so it really would have come as no surprise that such an important meeting would be minuted. There is no record that Sheridan objected at the time. He certainly didn't claim this in court. Those who were at that meeting who now say they did not realise that minutes were being taken are simply not credible.

And how could members of the SSP EC not give evidence, given the existence of the minutes which the court was in possession of? I don't see any reason why they should have risked perjury to clean up Sheridan's mess. You may say that at the very least they should have had collective amnesia, but this would not have been possible for whoever was minute secretary. Presumably this person should have been thrown to the wolves to defend Sheridan's honour (and marriage).

SP Member says: 'Anytime a socialist goes up against the anti-worker, anti-women, anti-socialist reactionary rag that the NOTW is they must be supported.'

Come off it SP Member, when was the last time we called Tommy a socialist? It's not so long ago we were giving the SSP leadership pelters because Tommy was talking nonsense about the 'mixed economy' of Norway being a model for Scotland. We accused him of abandoning socialism and being a nationalist. When he wrote about Cuba being socialist, we called him Stalinist. And by the way he wrote that in his regular column in the 'Daily Record', part of the Mirror Group. So you could also describe that as an 'anti-worker, anti-women, anti-socialist reactionary rag'. And I read a report tonight that he's said to be selling his story to the 'Record'. Nice.

But all that apart, he was not deserving of the support of socialists simply because he chose to take on the NOTW. He didn't do it for political reasons. He didn't do it for the good of the SSP - far from it, as he's managed to all but wreck the SSP in the process.

I don't agree with the orginal poster who made a reference to OJ Simpson. Jeffrey Archer is more apt and look what happened to him in the end.

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

Francie, I will be looking forward to you raising your differences with the SP on this issue within the party. You have not kept your support for our ex-comrades in Scotland a secret, but unlike the CWI who have justifiably criticised Tommy Sheridan and Alan McCoobes etc for their serious political mistakes - you haven't! You have supported them all the way. Now when there is a falling out amongst your political friends in Scotland you decide to back the lot who supported the News of the World - interesting!

by Mattick Sun Aug 06, 2006 18:06

So because someone disagrees with you on this question, he's backing the News of the World! You fail to answer any of the points he made, instead you demonise him. Im looking forward now to a host of accusations against the dissident: he's a reformist, a class traitor etc etc and then he'll be expelled, sorry, 'leave himself outside the ranks of the party' for some piddling bureacratic reason.

I hope that someday you will manage to get past the smoke and mirrors of Leninist dogmatism but for the moment I leave you to the incomparable joy of being one of the elect!

by > Sun Aug 06, 2006 18:33

Remember it is the NOTW which is at fault here. They ran a yellow rag story that was clearly not credible. They where aiming to undermine the SSP by going after its strongest asset, Tommy Sheridan, and disrupting the internal life of the party. It looks like the leadership of the SSP helped this process by taking a moralistic position on Tommys life.

This was an act of the greatest stupidity on the part of the SSP .

All socialists should reject any attempt by the NOTW to attack the SSP.

by Francis McCafferty - Socialist Party Mon Aug 07, 2006 00:32

Member of SP, as you point out I make no secret of my opinions - unlike you who hide behind anonymity.

You accuse me of backing the 'lot who supported the News of the World', I can only assume that you're backing the hypocrite and liar who has been bought and paid for by Mirror Group Newspapers.

by Badman Mon Aug 07, 2006 01:35

During the course of the trial it became clear that the NOTW had wildly embellished the stories about Sheridan. It also became absolutely clear that Sheridan had visited sex clubs and had multiple affairs.

The jury's decision was simply an expression of the hatred that most people feel towards muck-raking tabloid sleaze merchants. A majority of the jury decided that this justified hatred was paramount over Sheridan's philandering.

Sheridan's claim to be a working class champion standing up to the tabloids is obviously hypocritical since he writes for one of them and happily accepts their cash.

The SWP and the SP come out even worse than Tommy. They were happy to ignore reality and destroy the party for their own petty sectarian manouevrings.

by Good woman Mon Aug 07, 2006 13:24

It seems to me that the NoW had said one thing about Sheridan that made it difficult for him not to sue: that he had used a prostitute. Visiting a swingers club with your brother in law is an odd thing for a socialist to do, but not damning. But using a prostitute is. However,
under cross examination, the prostitute admitted she had not slept with him but with his brother in law.

Lots of socialists write for the bourgeois press. Joe Higgins writes the occasional column in various rags. It's called using the media to get your message across and if, like Sheridan, you are able to get a regular column that is not censored and able to use it to rant against what Bliar is doing in Iraq, in Scotland etc then fair play.

I have huge political differences with Sheridan - all this stuff about an independent socialist Scotland drives me mad but once the NoW published that stream of lies about him, I had no problems in taking his side.

Which side are you on? This remains the question.

by Champagne Socialist - Ask the Sex Workers Mon Aug 07, 2006 13:37

The sex-trade is an entirely separate issue to the projections of the left on it.
A lot of sex-workers are beginning to unionise and make their own rules-
Taking a feminist stance based on out-moded concepts of feminism is a useless
projection. Like all things, prostitution has suffered or been subject to forces
of corruption and money-driven, forces of exploitation and people
trafficking, but individuals do take back what they can, its about choice- not projecting.

by Good Woman Mon Aug 07, 2006 14:00

Nonsense! While a tiny minority of prostitutes might be able to 'make their own rules', the overwhelming majority are subject to abuse, violence and rape on a regular basis. Attacking prostitution is not the same thing as attacking sex workers but I don't think there is the slightest bit of 'outdated feminism' involved in saying that any man who uses a prostitute is not a socialist.

by FG Mon Aug 07, 2006 14:08

UNITED LEFT STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO TOMMY SHERIDAN'S
DEFAMATION CASE, 04/08/06

This summer has seen slaughter in the Middle East,
Blair lurch from crisis to crisis, the world economy
hover over the precipice as oil prices rocket and the
ruling Labour administration in Scotland admit it may
be in decline at the 2007 Scottish elections. Yet,
against this backdrop, the Scottish Socialist Party
has been incapacitated and distracted by a grotesque
circus,

http://www.ssp-ul.org/

Full statement at link:
http://www.ssp-ul.org/defstat.html

by Eamon Mon Aug 07, 2006 15:03

A simple question for you all:

Is it ok for a socialist to lie about, defame and slander his fellow-socialists, if by doing so, he beats the NOTW in a libel case?

by champagne socialist - ask the sex workers Mon Aug 07, 2006 16:47

If they say not, they are lying. As to Sheridan, a least the case gave the world a bit of levity.
Though he and his wife look like Tories more than anything.

I am sure also that socialists use illicit drugs and watch porn. Some may even write it.
Rosae-coloured glasses aside, they are human and don't deserve to be pedestalised.

by party party Mon Aug 07, 2006 19:56

Can someone help me out here? There has been so much said publicly by some about Sheridan telling lies. I still don’t know who it was that went to the press about the EC meetings minute. Why has their name and those associated with them not been branded about? Surely their actions are worthy of criticism? Who was it and what were their reasons?

by Socialist Mon Aug 07, 2006 20:44

When Sheridan asked for the name to be disclosed, the judge ruled that disclosure was not relevent.

by John Meehan Mon Aug 07, 2006 22:56

Follow this link to read 2 documents on the front page of the SSP site

1.

"The Fight for the Truth", an SSP All Members' Bulletin containing a detailed twelve page article by Alan McCombes (PDF)

2.

Minutes of an SSP Emergency Executive Meeting - Tuesday 9th November 2004 (Word Document)

http://www.scottishsocialistparty.org/

by What's going on (classic) Tue Aug 08, 2006 01:02

Oh please! How can Alan in his leaflet when addressing Peter Mullens comments try and make an analogy with what would have happened to Connolly or MacLean if they had been wife beaters and child abusers? Please someone edit that prior to its distribution, I fear it’s not going to win many people over!

by Old Joke - !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tue Aug 08, 2006 09:44

The Dub's used joke about Parnell's predilections for serving girls-

The statue of him at the top of O Connell Street is pointing to the nearest maternity
Hospital......

and they also said you couldn't throw a stick over the work-house wall without hitting
an O Connell.

by Member of Sp Tue Aug 08, 2006 14:36

Francie,
I would suggest that you read the following statement from the CWI on the outcome of the libel case http://www.cwiscotland.org/

Having read this I would then suggest that you are a member of the wrong organisation!

by Amused Tue Aug 08, 2006 14:48

Francis disagrees with his comrades and what we get a suggestion that he is in the wrong organistation. No surprises there. Does the 'Member of the SP' want to prove what Tourish has to say. Well QED comrade.

Francie, I hope you've paid your subs. They're coming to take you away ha, ha.
Do they still send the gummy northern Cork living rothweiller to do the 'you need reeducating' line? Or is it Uncle Kevin?

by Updater Tue Aug 08, 2006 14:56

I suggest that you actually read the statement mentioned in the CWI IS article.

by concerned socialist Tue Aug 08, 2006 15:25

this is not about the notw swingers etcetc its do you put yourself above the interest of the party and therefore above the interest of the class and it seems sheridan put himself first. glad i am not a member of the socialist party as it seems if you raise a difference then you are threatened with expulsion as per previous posting.

by hs - sp (per cap) Tue Aug 08, 2006 15:31

The whole situation stinks, the fact that tommy was willing to split the ssp in half for what is his own personal reputation is questionable to say the least. He could and should have said my private life is my own business and left it at that. For one, its nobodies buisness and two we shouldn't have to live under some victorian morality as handed down by hypocrites in the News of the world. Its extremely depressing to see faction fighting not over political questions and the direction of the ssp but instead to see faction fighting over a bizarre clintinesque sex scandal. Whether Tommy Sheridans victory turns out to be pyrrhic remains to be seen. He may have won the case but the the rumours will still persist. And if the cost is the party itself News of the world and what they represent will have been the real victors.
Either way I would hope that this bizzare scandal doesn't effect our own party and I for one would disagree with comments such as "you're in the wrong organisation" on this one, anonymously or not.

by Mike Wed Aug 09, 2006 13:50

1) What's the difference between the mirror group and news international?
2)What's the difference between Sheridan the socialist and Sheridan the neo-Stalinist ,left nationalist and parliamentry reformist your words not mine?
3)Are there any truths in the rumour that Sheridan has had a meeting with Peter Taffe and is re-joining the Socialst party/CWI?
4)Whats the difference between The Scottish Sunday Mail printed on the 6/8/06 and Hello/OK magazine?

by John Meehan Thu Aug 10, 2006 01:40

The CWI attacks the SSP opponents of Tommy Sheridan, Alan McCombes, Rosie Kane et al as follows :

"Even, if everything the NoW had written was true, and it was patently not true, it would in no way have justified their action against Tommy Sheridan in 2004 or since then."

Congratulations for clarifying the differences between the two sides.

Alan McCombes's account of what happened is, amongst other things, a brilliant contribution to the literature on how a Stalinist method develops. His starting point is the truth, and remaining loyal to it. Without that starting point, you cannot conduct an honest debate, and maintain solidarity among comrades, even when serious differences are revealed.

There's little reason to doubt the truth of the November 9 2004 EC Minute - that is the key starting point. Following that meeting the SSP leadership unsuccessfully tried to persuade Tommy Sheridan to abandon his libel action against the News of the World. Alan McCombes even went to jail to try and persuade his comrade to drop the case.

For the moment we should accept the CWI is not interested in the truth of the matter and move on - in their own damning words "even if everything the NoW had written was true..." they oppose the SSP leadership's actions from 2004 onwards.

The implications of all this are far-reaching - because it is, in my view, impossible in the short to long term to construct a common pluralist and democratic socialist organisation with currents which adopt the approach of the CWI statement authors. Perhaps the CWI will withdraw this paragraph - that would be a small, but useful step forward.

At the level of the SSP, the crucial turning point will probably be reached at the party's annual conference next October. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that events in Scotland will have a significant knock-on effect elsewhere. It is a little encouraging to see that some SP members in Ireland are troubled by the position taken by the CWI on the Sheridan case. I have not seen any comments from SWP members indicating differences with the line their platform has taken in Scotland - a line that is just as awful as the one taken by the CWI.

by *** Thu Aug 10, 2006 09:24

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 now 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 Eamon Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:55

McCombes has already said that he was unaware of any other copy of the minutes. Neither Scott nor Green have commented on the allegations that you raise.

What is far more significant is that 15 people who were at the SSP EC meeting on 9 November 2004 have stated that the minutes presented to party members are an accurate account of that meeting.

I think that tells its own story about who is telling the truth on this matter.

by Answering to *** Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:10

"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"

The witnesses weren't called on behalf of the NOTW. They were called by the NOTW. In fact several of them were seen as hostile witnesses.
On June 18th the last EC meeting before the trial there was a vote on a resolution which instructed those 11 SSP members to neither lie nor risk imprisonment for contempt of court. The vote was carried by 17 votes to 2 with one abstention. No other strategy was proposed.

by cropbeye - athol books & barraka books Thu Aug 10, 2006 15:09 cropbeye at yahoo dot com Cork

It seems the main unforeseen result of all this is that the S.w.p now have more

influence in the development of the party than they had before. Because of all the bad feeling

and personal mistrust Sheridan himself will now be seen as being more reliant on them

God help him.

I think if I was living in Scotland at the moment I would probably tactically vote

for the Greens.

by Wallace Thu Aug 10, 2006 17:14

Ah you always know rational debate is out the window when the old 'state agents' rubbish is touted by some ignramous who could'nt argue their way out of a tub of yougurt. So Alan Mc Coombes is a state agents? The man who wrote the book with Tommy, the man who supplied every significant idea that Tommy articulated until they parted ways two years ago, the man who made such a huge contribution to founding and building the SSP is a state agent? So you always suspected Frances Curran was a state agent? But of course you never found the time to raise this important 'fact' before? And your proof for these slanders?

It really has come to a desperate state of affairs when this sort of rubbish passes for debate. Its an automatic sign that someones talking bollocks when they come up with this one, and I include everyone who comes up with such crap, regardless of which side they take on the current crisis.

by Open Book Thu Aug 10, 2006 19:03

Clarity is a good thing but not something you are necessarily familiar with. As far as I can judge the CWI statement is the continuation of a clear political position taken since this situation arose. The CWI opposed the stance taken by the SSP EC regarding the News of the World attacks on Tommy Sheridan. From the outset a clique in the leadership of the SSP has used the News of the World fairytales to further their own position and strengthen their grip on the EC. This clique led by Alan McCoombes has put their own political careers before the interests of the SSP and before defending Sheridan and the SSP from the witch hunt by News International. Why did those who now call themselves United Left want Sheridan to abandon his libel case? Why did the United Left go out of their way to assist News International in its attacks on Sheridan and the SSP? The answer is that they miscalculated. They calculated if he didn’t take the case he would be damaged and would not be an impediment to their plans for the SSP. Once he decided to take the libel case they thought that Sheridan would lose and the resulting in him being finished as an MSP and a force in politics.
The United Left conspired to destroy Tommy Sheridan and they didn't care what impact that would have on the SSP. They felt that it would be Sheridan who would take all of the blame and the SSP would come out of the trial relatively unscathed. The opposite is the case. Sheridan has been strengthened and is an even more popular figure amongst the working class in Scotland than before.
I have read the CWI statement it says that the CWI believes that what the News of the World wrote was patently not true. United Left members believe or have stated in court that they believe the News of the World not Sheridan. The CWI statement also says is that even if what the News of the World did write was true that this would not justify the campaign by United Left against Sheridan since 2004. That is a continuation of what the CWI has argued all along and is nothing new. You make a big point about the truth. Do your comments mean that John Meehan believes the News of the World? Have you supported the actions of the United Left in its attacks on Sheridan since 2004? Do you support those who went out of their way to provide what they claimed were minutes of a meeting to News International to use in its witch hunt on the SSP?
The truth is simple in this case not complex. News International printed a scandalous attack on the leader of the SSP. Those who now call themselves United Left through their actions then and everything they have done since assisted News International with its attempts to destroy Sheridan and the SSP. News International failed as did the United Left. I agree with Tommy Sheridan’s comment that the leading SSP members who assisted News International, those who lead United Left are political scabs. Those who support and defend the United Left leaders are guilty of defending scabs.
You say "The implications of all this are far-reaching - because it is, in my view, impossible in the short to long term to construct a common pluralist and democratic socialist organisation with currents which adopt the approach of the CWI statement authors. Perhaps the CWI will withdraw this paragraph - that would be a small, but useful step forward". Do you believe this statement or paragraph will be withdrawn? This statement now features on the websites of the CWI in Scotland, and in Ireland (Socialist Party) and the CWI’s own website.

by *** Thu Aug 10, 2006 22:44

Eamon, you said 'McCombes has already said that he was unaware of any other copy of the minutes'.

Would you agree that the SSP 11 would have discussed this case and the possible questions that they would be asked?

If this is the case then McCoombs either knew of the existance of another copy of the minutes and lied about it, or Green and Scott intentionally withheld this information from the other 9 and went to court and lied about the existance of the handwritten notes.

15 people may have stated the minutes are accurate but 4 have stated they are inaccurate. If 15 can suggest that Sheridan lied in court, then you have to acknowledge that at least one, if not three of the SSP 11 lied in court. If McCoombs was telling the truth and he did not know about a second copy of the minutes then Green and Scott not only lied in court but also to the other 9 witnesses that were called on behalf of the NOTW.

There is one other point of importance here. Shortly after the SSP EC meeting in Nov. 2004, a leading member of what is now called the 'United Left' swore an affadavit to the Scottish Herald outlining the existance of this minute AND its contents. What was the purpose of this action if not to damage Sheridan's libel case? Who knew about this action and who (if anybody) authorised it?

The holier than thou attitude being presented by McCoombs, Leckie, Curran,Kane, Green, Truman, Scott and others is riddled with examples and attempts to hide information, leak information, lie, manoeuvre, scheme, plot and whatever else you want to call it. Sheridan is no saint but neither are the individuals on the other side of the party divide.

by OB Gorrah Fri Aug 11, 2006 10:51

"I agree with Tommy Sheridan’s comment that the leading SSP members who assisted News International, those who lead United Left are political scabs. Those who support and defend the United Left leaders are guilty of defending scabs. "

So Richie Venton is a scab. Can't wait to see all those CWI texts being revised. And Tommy's a working class hero. What a turnaround for the 'mixed economy loving, nationalist stalinist' (CWI words not mine).
Got to give it to you Open Book you show the CWI are the true inheiritors of the Leninst school that Stalin attended. Can't wait to see the witchhunt of SP members who disagree with your simplistic analysis. Francie, hs and the other comrades who don't buy this vulgar line, you'd better watch out.

by Eamon Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:28

Handwritten notes of a meeting are not the same as actual typed minutes; maybe that explains the apparent confusion between members of the SSP Ec on that issue. I really don't know, as neither Scott or Green have made any comments about it.

In any case, it matters little, as 15 people who were at the EC, including those 3, have all stated that Sheridan did admit going to swingers clubs and that this was minuted. There is no discrepancy in what they are saying in relation to what happened at the meeting, and that is the most important thing. Moreover, this is what they have been saying since November 2004, and not some concocted version of events, as Sheridan would have us believe.

That is the most important fact of the whole business. Everything else is secondary.

As for those 4 who disagree--ask them why. And while you're at it, ask them why, if Sheridan didn't make those admissions, did they vote that he should resign. Remember, the decision of that EC was unanimous, not 15-4. This is an incontestable fact and one that was outlined at the NC meeting which followed that EC.

Basically, the 4 who are now arguing that Sheridan didn't say those things haven't a leg to stand on. Neither has Sheridan. He has defamed and traduced honest socialists in order to prevent the truth about his personal life from coming out. October will see all of this thrashed out at the SSP conference, and hopefully will see the departure of Sheridan and his dishonest allies in the SWP and CWI

by Open Book Fri Aug 11, 2006 14:08

I am not a member of the CWI so your comments re attacking people are not relevant.

by concerned socialist Sat Aug 12, 2006 15:13

'I am not a member of the CWI so your comments re attacking people are not relevant.'

Yeah right 'Open Book'.

'the CWI statement is the continuation of a clear political position....I have read the CWI statement...a continuation of what the CWI has argued all along and is nothing new...This statement now features on the websites of the CWI in Scotland, and in Ireland (Socialist Party) and the CWI’s own website. '

for someone who is not a member of the CWI, you sure read a lot of what they write. typical CWI dishonesty.

by Open Book Sat Aug 12, 2006 17:20

It seems a lot of indymedia visitors read a lot of what the CWI write that is how they are able to quote and refer so much to what they say. I have read the material which has been brought to all of our attention here by CWI and non CWI members.

by Francis McCafferty - Socialist Party Sat Aug 12, 2006 22:35

Member of SP, I had been hoping that you would withdraw your scandalous comment calling my membership of the SP into question.

I note that even though the CWI Scotland statement you referred to makes very strong criticisms of the United Left, they do not call for their expulsion or question their membership of their party. Your snide comment is a gift to critics of our party.

The statement does not clarify why exactly it would be a good thing for Sheridan to regain leadership of the SSP. It points out Sheridan's personal popularity, but what else? Where is the evidence that Sheridan would provide 'a principled socialist leadership'? Has he renounced previous positions that comrades in the CWI criticised him for?

It has been suggested that despite political weaknesses, Sheridan has retained his links with the working class communities he represents. This may have been true, but where is he now heading?

Bundled by Mirror Group heavies out of the court, whisked away to the Hilton, where he was holed up most of the week, Sheridan seems to have set his sights more on celebrity stardom. So far he has clocked up STG £231,000 and the meter is still running. Where is the money going?

Sheridan has had no qualms about being used as a pawn in the tabloid circulation war being waged between the Mirror Group and News International. So far his campaign for the leadership of the SSP has been conducted through the pages of the Daily Record. In the Sunday Mail (also Mirror Group) he said that if he failed to regain the leadership he would not stay in the SSP. He is also looking for 'one member one vote'.

This is evidence that a party led by Sheridan would not be accountable nor principled. If the rules don't suit him then the rules should be changed and if he doesn't get his way he's off. That is the same kind of individualist approach which led him to use the capitalist courts in the first place.

The CWI Scotland statement unfortunately builds the Sheridan myth. Sheridan was not ‘targeted because he was a socialist and someone who speaks out against injustice’. Digging dirt on those in the public eye is what the gutter press, in particular the NOTW/Sun do. Look at the ‘Sun’ hack who has been arrested this week for intercepting texts and messages for, amongst others, the royal family, Paul McCartney and the Beckhams.

Scargill sued over allegations of Libyan gold and that he had trousered donations during the miners strike (if memory serves me well, it was against the Mirror Group, Sheridan’s official news agency in his leadership bid). Scargill had been targeted because he was leading the NUM when they were conducting a huge struggle against the hated Thatcher government. There can be no comparison with Sheridan’s case.

‘In a powerful 85 minute speech to the jury, that some commentators described as the greatest political speech they had ever heard…’, This kind of language can only fuel the cult of the personality which has built up around Sheridan among a section of the SSP.

The allegations against Sheridan were ‘patently not true’ the statement continues. Some have argued that it does not matter if the allegations are true or not, that it is his court victory that matters. This goes further and gives dangerous credence to the whiter-than-white persona he has crafted. It is giving hostages to fortune.

The present state of paralysis in the SSP is the responsibility of Tommy Sheridan. He will only inflict further damage if he wins the leadership of the SSP and it is to be hoped that SSP members will reject him.

by SP Member - Socialist Party/CWI Sun Aug 13, 2006 01:07

In reply to Francis McCafferty -

I wasn't going to get involved in this - the whole debacle is more than distasteful, from both sides.

However -

The member of the SP who called your membership into question was wrong. Members of the SP are entitled to have differences of opinion and as is readily acknowledged you have voiced differences on Scotland in the past.

In defence of this SP member, I think that the point they were trying to make (not very effectively it might be said) is that within a revolutionary organisation like the SP, these differences should be raised and discussed within the structures of the SP, rather than on an internet forum like this.

Saying that there are some important points that have been raised that others on the left could benefit from if they are answered and I will attempt to do this.

It is important to put the current situation into a historical context.

Tommy Sheridan, Alan McCoombs, Frances Curran and others within the SSP all come from the historical position of being members of the CWI. Of these Sheridan was the best known and most widely respected among the working class in Scotland, primarily as a result of his outstanding role in the Anti-Poll Tax campaign, firstly in Scotland and then throughout Britain.

Given political developments in Scotland the possibility and, indeed, necessity of launching the CWI in Scotland as an open organisation after many years of entrism in the LP, led to sharp political discussions within the CWI (see http://www.marxist.net/openturn/index.html for the discussion documents). Indeed these debates were a factor in the split between the CWI and one of its leading figures, Ted Grant. One of the criticism raised by the Grant faction at the time was that launching an open organisation in Scotland could potentially lead to the disintegration of the Scottish organisation either in a sectarian or reformist direction. This was accepted as a danger, but the majority felt that, given the political situation and the potential for political developments in Scotland it was a risk that was necessary to take.

The Scottish Socialist Party was established following another period of intense debate within the CWI. The points of disagreement between the CWI and the Sheridan, McCoombs, Curran faction was not about whether the SSP should be established (despite what many including TS, AMcC and FC have claimed), but about what character of an organisation it would be and what would be the role and position of the CWI within the SSP. Sheridan, McCoombs and Curran argued that in effect the CWI in Scotland should be disolved into a broad formation. The CWI proposed that Scottish Militant Labour should be re-launched as the SSP, maintianing it revolutionary structures and outlook, or the SSP should be launched as a broad party with the CWI maintianing an organised and coherent revolutionary structure within the SSP. One of the dangers that was posed at the time was the potential for a broad formation without a revolutionary base would drift in a reformist and left nationalist direction. The majority of the CWI members in Scotland supported Sheridan, McCoombs etc. This group form a loose platform within the SSP known as the ISM. A small minority of the CWI members chose to remain with the CWI and formed the CWI platform within the SSP (for documents see http://www.marxist.net/scotland/index.html). Unfortunately, from the perspective of the CWI, our warnings appear to have been bourne out, and the currecnt crisis within the SSP is in part a manifestation of the development of the shift of Sheridan, McCoombs etc. to a left nationalist position.

The current crisis within the SSP is about as serious as it can get. Personally I cannot see anything other that a split occurring at the October conference, if not before. At this point it appears Sheridan has the support of a majority of the rank and file, while the United Left appear to have the support of those working in the party machinery, MSP's etc. and the bulk of the SSP organisation in Glasgow.

Francis,
you are absolutely correct. The CWI has not, and would not, call for the expulsion of the United Left grouping. You posed the question 'when was the last time we called Tommy a socialist?'. I would suggest that the CWI has never claimed that Tommy Sheridan, Alan McCoombs, Frances Curran, Richard Venton etc. were not socialists. At this point I would not regard them as maxist revolutionaries, I think they all have drifted politically from Marxism over the past number of years. But there is no doubt that all these individuals could be regarded as socialists.

You state
'Sheridan has had no qualms about being used as a pawn in the tabloid circulation war being waged between the Mirror Group and News International'. Neither for that matter have Curran, Leckie and Rosie Kane. If Sheridan has used the Mirror Group to attack the United Left faction, the others have used News International in exactly the same way. In the aftermath of the court case neither side has been innocent in the way it has behaved. Statements from the United Left in the aftermath of the case, have been nothing short of disgraceful. In particular, Leckie's comparison of Sheridan to Goebbels was absolutely disgusting. Sheridan for his part has been little better, especially his 'scab' comments.

You criticise
the CWI statement for by claiming the CWI 'can only fuel the cult of the personality which has built up around Sheridan among a section of the SSP' because it says ‘In a powerful 85 minute speech to the jury, that some commentators described as the greatest political speech they had ever heard…’. The reality Francis, is that it was that good. Sheridan for many years has been acknowledged as a powerful orator. It is his greatest asset and his speech to the jury undoubtedly had a significant effect on the outcome of the case. The CWI statement was acknowledging this fact, not fueling a 'cult of personality'. This whole notion, initially started by the gossips in the CPGB, is now regularly trotted out by the United Left. They seem to have a serious problem recognising and acknowledging the standing Sheridan is held in within the Scottish working class. Are there dangers in this - absolutely, but they would be, in my opinion, primarily tactical dangers rather than political ones. In Ireland much of the SP profile is directly as a result of the standing Joe Higgins has bulit among some sections of the working class. We have the same problems here.

You state
'The allegations against Sheridan were ‘patently not true’ the statement continues. Some have argued that it does not matter if the allegations are true or not, that it is his court victory that matters. This goes further and gives dangerous credence to the whiter-than-white persona he has crafted. It is giving hostages to fortune'.

I would argue that the statement does not give credence to a 'whiter-than-white persona'. In fact this section of the statement is not about Sheridan at all. It continues 'it would in no way have justified their action (McCoombs etc.) against Tommy Sheridan in 2004 or since then'. The SSP EC made serious tactical errors since the begining of this situation. Indeed, Sheridan in part contributed to these developments but going along with the resignation etc. But the blame for these blunders lies primarily at the door of the majority faction on the SSP EC. They walked themselves into being faced with being called as witnesses by trying to force Sheridan to drop his case.

I would like to quote a small section from a CWI member in Scotland 'Keith' that was posted on UKLN. I believe it was reposted on indymedia. I think Keith hits the nail on the head -

'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'.

Despite everything that has happened the United Left faction point blank refuse to even consider the fact that their tactics have contributed to the current situation. They are behaving like ostriches with their heads buried in the sand - 'It's all Sheridan's fault'.

And what is their solution to the current mess - Expose Sheridan as a liar, have him jailed and their good name will be vindicated.

Francis - your comments do pose a number of vitally important questions.

You state 'The statement does not clarify why exactly it would be a good thing for Sheridan to regain leadership of the SSP. It points out Sheridan's personal popularity, but what else? Where is the evidence that Sheridan would provide 'a principled socialist leadership'? Has he renounced previous positions that comrades in the CWI criticised him for?'

I will attempt to answer them in reverse order -

Question 4 - Sheridan has not renounced his previous positions that the CWI has criticised him for. But, remember, I don't regard Sheridan as a marxist revolutionary. The CWI has previously supported similar individuals for leadership positions in the LP. The following come to mind - Tony Benn, Eric Heffer, Michael D Higgins, Emmet Stagg etc. In fact politically Sheridan is better than these with the possible exception of Eric Heffer.

Question 3 - The CWI statement did not claim that Sheridan would provide 'a principled socialist leadership'. It states that 'These events are a kick in the teeth for working class people who are screaming out for a party prepared to fight for their interests. The CWI in Scotland will work to re-build the socialist movement with a principled socialist leadership. Unfortunately, this will involve electing a new leadership to replace the current one'. Sheridan, at best, is only part of the solution.

Question 1 & 2 - Why Sheridan and not the United Left. The CWI argues that the United Left 'have become detached from the outlook of the working class, which is linked to their move away from a consistent socialist approach'. They appear to lack any understanding of the implications that their actions have had since Nov. 2004. They fail to understand that Tommy Sheridan has a significant level of respect and popularlity among the Scottish working class. They fail to recognise that Sheridan's victory over the NOTW has been met with widespread acclimation by workers. They fail to realise that if the NOTW succeed in their appeal it will be judged by the working class as the shafting of Sheridan by the judicary. In particular they are absolutely mad to think that their strategy of attempting to get Sheridan jailed for perjury will result in their redemption. If anything it will lead to the United Left being openly despised by the Scottish working class and the possible destruction of the name of socialism in Scotland for many a year.

There are dangers for the CWI, and more particularly, for the working class in Scotland, in siding with Sheridan. We do not know what direction he will turn. We know there will be difficulties in terms of politics and party structures. The CWI is not naive. The problem is the United left have already been consigned to the dustbin of history. As far as the working class are concerned they sided with the NOTW - whether that was their intention or not. Their efforts now to further shaft Sheridan will only further deepen the hole they have dug for themselves. In the process they have the potential to do serious damage to the cause of socialism in Scotland for many years.

This unfortunately is the reality. The potential exists from the victory Sheridan has won over the NOTW (and the circumstances are by and large irrelevent, particularly in working class communities) for to reverse at least some of the damage caused to the SSP over the past 2 years. Irrespective of the outcome of the conference, the other 5 MSP's have absolutely no hope of being re-elected. Sheridan, if he stands, has a chance and we have to attempt to build from there.

I doubt if you will be convinced Francis, but you need to try and look at the broader picture. Almost forgot - due to previous personal abuse on this forum I rarely post and never use my name.

And I will wait patiently for the barrage of criticism.

by Personal Capacity Sun Aug 13, 2006 01:09

Francis - If you are giving your personal views you should put the words "personal capacity" after your affiliation (or "per.cap." or "p.c."). It's indymedia ettiquete to do this especially when you are not giving the view of the organisation you give after you name.

by Archivist Sun Aug 13, 2006 12:49

I have no intention of abusing you - the response that you seemed to think you would get from people. However, I will say your position is not credible. You base everything, ultimately, on the assumption that working class people are innately sympathetic to TS, and that his opponents 'sided' with the NOTW. I think both assumptions are flawed.

The truth, to start with, is that Sheridan lied. As Trotsky once said in another connection, the motor force of progress is truth, not lies. It would be one thing if Sheridan simply lied about his private life - but in doing so he lied about his close colleaguies, about meetings he attended, about the motivations of others and much else besides. This is lying on a collosal, epic, heroic scale - and all for purely personal reasons. Nothing to do with promoting the socialist cause whatsoever. It suggests a man whose ego is utterly out of control, and for whom everything is subordinate to one thing - the greater glory of the legend of Tommy. Those of you who have sided with him are, I think, likely to find the future rather hairy - Sheridan is a Scottish Galloway, and every bit as uncontrollable or unreliable. It rather looks as if you are seeking some kind of factional advantage - I doubt it will materialise.

On people siding with TNOTW - I don't accept this either. People simply told the truth about discussions in the SSP. It would have been untenable to do otherwise. Skilled QCs would have gone through lies in lightning quick time. Moreover, ALL were agreed that Sheridan's strategy (of suing) was dangerous and wholly unnecessary. Hence the decision to remove a man from a leadership position who would not accept the unanimous decision of his colleagues. Rather than siding with this paper, people were simply called as witnesses, and in the interests of truth and in maintaining a story that would not be torn to shreds, told the facts as they were. To call them scabs, as TS has done, is absolutely outrageous, and is no way to conduct discussion in the labour movement. In tethering yourself to someone who can behave like this, you do little to advance the image or cause of your organisation. At the very least, I hope you dissasociate yourself from this kind of preposterous name calling - at once.

Sheridan is now an out of control liability. There is plenty of evidence that the working class do not see him as you say they do - including the most recent decision, publicisied today, of many key SSP members in Glasgow to reveal that he had told them a very different version of events to what he articulated in court. It will take only more fact, one more allegation, one picture of him in action for his whole case to collapse. That will also undermine you. You will have sided with a man who lies against colleagues for personal gain, and whose view of both women in general and the truth is very suspect. This is no way forward at all. You are gravely in error on all these questions.

This is also, in my opinion, the end of teh SSP project - whatever happens. There is a wider discussion to be had about why/ how this happened, and there are enormous strategic implications posed by this crisis that the left has not yet even begun to consider.

by SP member - Socialist Party/CWI Sun Aug 13, 2006 13:10

Did you actually read my comments or just see CWI and assume I was saying certain things.

Try reading them again and this time give a considered response - not one based on what you think I said.

by hs - sp (personal capacity) Sun Aug 13, 2006 21:29

The scandal involving sheridan had nothing to do with political questions, or the ssps drift to the right or nationalism. The split had nothing to do with those things, it was over a clintenesque sex scandal. For sheridan to not sue was not "impossible" it just took a little bit of discipline. And the line that it doesn't matter whether he lied or not? it did matter and does matter, and this is far more scandalous than any sex scandal. And if it does turn out he lied and it comes out in the wash, the comrades in scotland will look extremely foolish. The cwi shouldn't have gotten involved in this mess at all. If sheridan wants to take a personal court case for personal reasons he does not necessarily deserve party support, especially if he was prepared to sacrafice the party for the court case.

by SP Member - Socialist Party/CWI Sun Aug 13, 2006 22:12

hs - I have to disagree with you.

The situation the SSP now finds itself in is directly as a result of the reaction by the SSP EC to the media stories. Their mistaken tactics and strategy they adopted were directly as a result of the lack of a political understanding of the impact of their tactics and is directly related to their shift from marxism to left nationalism. The CWI in Scotland has consistanly pointed out that as they (including Sheridan) have drifted in this political direction they have become more and more detached from the base of support build during the previous period. This is amply demonstrated by the falling support for the SSP in elections.

The split is as the result of deepening personality clashes with the former ISM.

You state that it was not 'impossible' for Sheridan not to sue. But the point I was making was not that he had a choice but that his intention always was to sue. This was the situation. Claiming that he didn't have to is irrelevent, he was going to. The strategy of the United Left should have been ensuring that the SSP and individual members were not dragged into the court case. Instead they embarked on a crazy strategy of trying to force Sheridan to back off. Remember that a leading member of the UL gave an affidavit to the Scottish Herald shortly after the SSP EC meeting in Nov. 2004 stating what existed in the minutes. This was sheer stupidity.

Does it matter if he lied? If the SSP EC had never discussed the issue it would have made no difference to the SSP for the simple reason that none of the witnesses would have been called. Now that the case is over it is an issue purely from the perspective of the United Left, because it is the only thing that they have left to fight on. While it might be an issue in the SSP and for the NOTW, the court case is now history for those workers in Scotland who support Sheridan and the SSP. Legally it will be practically impossible to prove that Sheridan lied unless one of the witnesses who supported him comes out and states that they lied and that Sheridan put them up to it. Also don't think that the United Left are whiter-than-white on this issue. Both sides have manouvered and have been economical with the truth over the past 18 months. The SSP EC itself lied about the reasons for Sheridan's resignation in Nov 2004.

The CWI had no choice but to get involved. The CWI in Scotland is part of the SSP. It would have been regarded as a complete cop out for us to have ignored it. However unlike ALL the other factions, the CWI position has been consistant. We were opposed to the SSP EC discussing the isue. We were opposed to the decision to force Sheridan to resign. We opposed the strategy of the United Left to force Sheridan to drop the court case. The CWI in Scotland did these things because we could see where this whole episode was heading. In fact the likelihood is that the only ones who will walk out the other end when this saga is finished without any dirt attaching will be the CWI.

As for now, the CWI has a responsibility to try and salvage something that is left from the wreckage of the SSP, not for ourselves but for the working class in Scotland. The decision to support Sheridan in the current faction fight is dictated by this. Politically there is little difference between either element, but the only strategy that the United Left are currently engaged in is to proved Sheridan lied and have him jailed for perjury. This would be an absolute disaster for the cause of socialism in Scotland, would set the work back by many, many years, and would play right into the hands of the SNP. If it were to succeed don't be surprised to see many of the individuals involved resurfacing in the SNP because the SSP will be dead and buried if it were to happen.

Sheridan was entitled to take this libel action. The SSP didn't have to support him and could have salvaged something by remaining outside the sphere of the court case. Instead the SSP leadership panicked and embarked on a crazy course that saw 11 members of the SSP saying Sheridan was lying in court and another 4 saying he was telling the truth. The responsibility for this, whether they like it or not and whether they are willing to admit it or not, lies with those elements that not make up the United Left group.

by hs - sp (personal capacity) Sun Aug 13, 2006 23:11

Saying Tommy Sheridan was always going to sue is not a viable argument. Especially as we are supporting him (at the moment.) I could at the same time argue the allegedly slandered members of the EC are always going to try and clear there names. That doesn't make it correct or mean we should support them.

Tommy Sheridan is a very experinced activist who had to weigh up the options and it seems to me he saw the destruction of the party as a price worth paying, a political price at that.
How this case has done anything for the cause of working class politics is far beyond my understanding.

From what I can see at the beginning of the scandal the majority (i believe correctly) advised Tommy not to sue, but to let the case roll over when the rags got their next victim.
Tommy choose to sue anyway, all the rest of the mess accusations and counter accusations came directly from this choice.

I still maintain it had nothing to do with the ssp moving towards left national politics.
I don't think it was to do with a clash of personalities as the entire split was brought on by Tommy deciding to sue. if he hadn't done so there would have been no split. There were no differences of note between the two sides before the scandal and certainly nothing in which the cwi or swp factions took sides.

Tommy was fired for going against the wishes of the majority and deciding to sue anyway. Not for the sex scandals and/or any political position.
You are right that the EC made some massive mistakes and should have pulled back. but often these things have a life of their own. But Tommy was the one who had made the choice to drag the thing through the courts and we in the scottish cwi are by their
actions are endorsing (retrospectively) that strategy for god knows why. just because someone is popular doesn't make them right.

I wonder will tommy return the favour...

by archivist Mon Aug 14, 2006 01:16

HS - I fear you will shortly find the entire weight of the CWI against you, and that (judging by past experience) your days of membership are numbered...... You may even find that by your actions in this discussion you are 'placing yourself outside the party'.....

by SP Member - Socialist Party/CWI Mon Aug 14, 2006 10:39

No disciplinary action will be taken against anyone in the CWI on this issue. The suggestion is ludicrous and is really nothing more than attempting to stir the sh*t. By the way I notice you didn't respond to my previous comments. Howver I will ask one question. Contrary to what you said I did disassociate myself from the 'scab' comments by Sheridan. They were a disgrace and I condemn them outright. I would now ask you to do the same in relation to the comments made by Carolyn Leckie which compared Sheridan to Goebbels.

hs - your reply.

I think you are missing the point.

Sheridan is far from innocent in this whole debacle. We would have also advised against him suing. However in the present circumstances this is irrelevent. You state that the current situation arises from Sheridan's decision to sue. I would disagree. The SSP EC were unable (or unwilling) to look at all the possible developments that could arise from the NOTW article. They failed to see the bigger picture. They adopted a strategy based on the mistaken assumption that they could force Sheridan to drop the libel case. The United Left are at fault because they discussed the issue in the first place at the SSP EC, took minutes of something that shouldn't have been minuted and then leaked the existance of the minutes adn their contents to the Scottish Herald. Their strategy was seriously flawed from the outset and was heading directly to the disaster that saw them in court giving evidence against Sheridan (or for the NOTW). The last memory of this from SSP supporters is that these individuals went to court to shaft Sheridan.

This case has been a disaster for the cause of socialism. The only outcome that can be looked upon positively is the fact that Sheridan won the case and stuck it to the NOTW. In terms of the current situation - why support Sheridan? Because politically the United Left group are dead and buried. They are tainted with the fact that they gave evidence against Sheridan and for the NOTW and despite this Sheridan won. They are now basing their salvation on getting Sheridan jailed for perjury. Rather than saving them it will further compound what ordinary SSP supporters will see as their treachery of Sheridan. For the SSP to survive as any sort of political force in Scotland Sheridan has to win in October. This will not mean everything will be rosy in the garden. It is impossible to know what way Sheridan and his inner circle (and the SWP) will behave in this case, but it is a risk we have to take.

I would also disagree that this has nothing to do with politics. Conflict existed within the ISM long before the article appeared in the NOTW. The ISM was split into two if not three factions. Its existance was based solely on protecting the leading positions in the SSP of those involved in the ISM and splits were emerging as individuals jockeyed for position. The shift from marxism to left nationalism did not cause a political split within their ranks, but did mean a political split between the ISM and their support base in the wider working class. They were attempting to increase their support base by shifting to left nationalism, whereas in reality it was having the opposite effect (something none of them could recognise). As support declined faction fighting emerged. The libel case brought things to a head. A split would still have occurred without it, it would just have been a longer more drawn out process still resulting in the decline of the SSP.

The decision by the CWI to support Sheridan is not based on his popularity. It is based on the fact that if the United Left win the SSP, it is politically dead in the water. The United Left will expel at least half the membership (including the CWI - and it would have happened even if we hadn't supported Sheridan). They will loose all their MSP seats and probably the councillor position as well. They may well drag on for a period, but it will be a period of terminal decline. Individuals will drop out or jump to the SNP. If Sheridan wins there is a chance ( a slim one) that the SSP will survive. The United Left will most certainly walk out. Sheridan has a chance (only a chance) of holding his seat. A profile can be maintained and his victory over the NOTW can be used to generate publicity for the SSP. But any re-building of the SSP will be a difficult task. Many of the best organisers will be gone with the United Left and it will be impossible to know how Sheridan and his immediate supporters will behave. But this is the ONLY prospect of something being salvaged from this whole mess.

by Reader Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:35

Regardless of whether the 11 SSP executive members had appeared in court or whether minutes of the meeting had been kept or not, there is no doubting that Tommy would still have ended up taking on the NOTW. And that he would have had to attempt to destroy Katrina Trolle in court notwithstanding the fact that she was a comrade and a candidate of the SSP.
The CWI in all of this forget an important facet of socialism and that is humanity. They probably view it as a bourgeois deviation. She may well have contributed somewhat to her faith by getting involved with a lying toerag but once called to court she had no real alternative but to tell the truth. Here she puts forward her story.

by Reader Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:57

The civil war raging within the Scottish Socialist Party is set to become even more ferocious after a group of longstanding party activists last night alleged that Tommy Sheridan told them, at a series of individual meetings, that he was the unnamed politician at the centre of allegations in the News of the World, involving a sex club in Manchester.
In an extraordinary development, six of Glasgow's most influential grassroots members, all of whom previously shared the same platform as the former SSP leader, said they felt compelled to come forward after Sheridan branded lifelong socialists 'scabs' and threatened to destroy them. In a letter to the Socialist Voice newspaper, they said they could no longer stand by and watch the 'grotesque, Orwellian' situation.
[continues]

by From the Herald (Glasgow) Mon Aug 14, 2006 15:52

George Galloway, the former Labour MP and now leader of the far-left Respect in England, has backed Mr Sheridan. He said: "There will have to be change in the SSP. Tommy will have to put to the sword and expel those involved in this conspiracy against him."

by Derry Air Mon Aug 14, 2006 16:49

When Tommy won his court case he compared his victory to Gretna beating Real Madrid after them qualifying for Europe for the first time. I wonder was it an omen that a couple of days later they were thrashed by the Candystripes (Derry City).
I think Tommy has as much chance in the second leg (appeal) as Gretna do against Derry.

by de Gaul Mon Aug 14, 2006 18:33

What we need is a genuine Labour Party, not a collection of little 'People's Front for the Liberation of Judea' style sects.

by CNT Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:48

Derry Air has spoken more sense than anyone else on this thread!
Sheridan will almost certainly lose his appeal. A jury might give the two fingers to NI once, but on appeal the FACTS will come through. While Sheridan's priavte life shouldn't be a matter for concern normally - he's the one who claims to be a family man, and he;s the one who's lying.

by Wee Man Wed Aug 16, 2006 16:37

He's seen off his SSP enemies, Murdoch, the NOTW, the sleazy sex trade attempted blackmailers and now to top it all off his own legal team which he had the sense to sack.
Some man for one man.

by Red Van Wed Aug 16, 2006 19:13

Thats cause he was well trained.

by John Meehan Thu Aug 17, 2006 14:31

Details at this link :

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/68152-print.shtml

by Netopia Thu Aug 17, 2006 16:24

John Meehan is wrong to say Sheridan will definitly leave the SSP. He says that he's considering it and is inviting people to a meeting to discuss things. There is a Conference in October. That conference should not be abandoned. It should be held and the "United Left" should get the boot. If they continue being a thorn in side they should be expelled. The SSP should not be abandoned to them without a fight.

by Swingopia Thu Aug 17, 2006 17:18

John Meehan posted an article in which Sheridan claims that he thinks it might be time to leave and set up a new party. Now doubt planning to bring the RESPECT franchise to Scotland. Gorgeous George and himself, what a dream team. And certainly the nightmare team for the CWI. Tommy might be a bit thick but I don't think he'll be swayed by anything they have to say. He knows they have him down as a 'mixed economy loving, nationalist stalinist Castroite' so I don't think he'll fall for the Judas kiss and make up act. Our poster above should know as Tommy does that if the Conference goes ahead in October that there is no chance of Sheridan or his supporters booting out or expelling the UL. But our friend might find that hard to believe because the SSP has a constitution which brings with it democratic rules. No throwing somebody out because a 'revolutionary' elite decides to do it. There will be democracy in the open. But Tommy knows that and doesn't want to face it, just like he won't want to face his deselection for the candidacy for the Scottish Parliament unless of course he decides to the run for the Orkneys or maybe there will be enough votes in Dundee.
The big question here will be whether the CWI leave to go with Tommy and join the Scottish branch of RESPECT.

by Netopia Thu Aug 17, 2006 23:21

Tommy Sheridan has not got much time for Respect. I reckon it's wishful thinking from SW Platform to think they'll get a local branch of respect. If you thought that McCoombeites were bad, wait till you get Respect/SWP/Galloway in the leadership. We'll see a complete sell-out on fundemental questions like Gay Rights and Women's Rights in the same way the McCoombeites sold out on socialism. The CWI position is clear from what I can see. They will give critical support to Sheridan in October. They are not changing their view on him. They are not putting their own differences with Sheridan ahead of what is needed now for the SSP, ie remove McCoombeites. Fight for the SSP now! It's not as if we've the terrible decision of McCoombes or Galloway!!

by another sp member - sp Fri Aug 18, 2006 01:54

What is needed now is for the conference to take place and for Sheridan to be rehabilitated and for there not to be retribution. People who wanted to slag Tommy have done and those close to him previously have let out a lot of vitriol. However the situation will not be resolved with expulsions on either side. Derek Hatton, George Galloway, Arthus Scargill - there is a thread. Would be interesting what people consider of the SP's view on unprincipled alliances. The only accusation against Joe HIggins is that he is dour but his dail performance often negates this accusation.

Francie, HS etc stop boxing yourselves into a corner

by Badman Fri Aug 18, 2006 02:21

A purge!

"what is needed now for the SSP, ie remove McCoombeites"

Nothing like a good old-fashioned purge. Anybody who supported McCoombe is a McCoombite and must be purged for ideological treachery!

It is almost amazing that you can mantain such enthusiastic sectarianism as the SSP has been reduced to rubble around you. What a soap-opera.

by William Millar Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:36

"Francie, HS etc stop boxing yourselves into a corner"

In other words - stop thinking for yourselves. You fear association with the McCoombites? You may be purged, expelled, airbrushed from history - you decide? I hope those subs are up to date lads.

by Aran Fri Aug 18, 2006 15:31

Police are investigating claims that attempts were made to stop a witness in Tommy Sheridan's defamation case from giving important evidence. Helen Allison, 52, has lodged a complaint with Strathclyde Police over an alleged attempt to pervert the course of justice. During the court case, Ms Allison said she had seen the politician have sex with a prostitute in a Glasgow hotel. She alleges that she was threatened and offered bribes before giving evidence.
[continues]

by Nara Fri Aug 18, 2006 15:39

Shes a pathological liar and after lieing in court she is continuing to do so. She probably now fears that she will be charged with perjury as do 11 SSP leaders. This story should also get her another £20K from the tabloids.

by Rana Fri Aug 18, 2006 15:49

Something that Tommy and Gail know alot about.

by Glesgae Lad Mon Aug 21, 2006 11:20

The party membership has forfeited the confidence of the great leader, so the great leader will now elect a new party membership.

Mr Sheridan said last night that there was an "unstoppable momentum building up" for the creation of a new socialist party in Scotland to replace an organisation that had become "grotesquely distorted".
He said two groupings within the SSP, the SWP (Socialist Workers) and CWI (the former Militant) had voted to leave the existing SSP, as had the South of Scotland regional committee, where Ms Byrne is based.

by Glesgae Lad Mon Aug 21, 2006 12:01

A letter from Richie Venton to SSP Trade Unionists

by the latest Mon Aug 21, 2006 14:07

International Socialists, cwi Scotland

The Committee for a Workers International platform of the SSP has agreed to support the building of a new party of socialism in Scotland.

Quote:

"We believe the SSP is now effectively finished as a party that could seek to organise and represent the working class of Scotland. The name of the SSP has been dragged through the mud by the actions of the leadership majority. The CWI believes that the energies and efforts of socialists is now better utilised in building a new force for working class struggle and socialism".

See full statement at following link:

by Aran Mon Aug 21, 2006 14:29

Statement from the SSP executive below.

by Tom Tom MacCute Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:34

"Tommy Sheridan has spoken of his regret at using the word "scab" to describe Scottish Socialist Party colleagues who gave evidence against him."

by Francis McCafferty - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Thu Aug 24, 2006 18:20

SP member, there are a number of points you have raised which I would like to comment on.

You have made a number of claims which are ‘patently untrue’.

A number of times you have stated that the ‘only strategy’ of the United Left is to have Sheridan jailed for perjury. No one has called for Sheridan to be jailed. No one.

Several times you talk about a purge of Sheridan and his supporters (including the CWI) if the United Left were to win the leadership. This argument may be redundant, now that these people have left the SSP, but it will be used as a part justification for the course of action that has been taken. It simply isn’t true. There have been no calls for expulsions, except of course from the Sheridan-supporting SWP.

You said:

‘If Sheridan has used the Mirror Group to attack the United Left faction, the others have used News International in exactly the same way.’ Again simply not true. Sheridan is the only one to have been bought and paid for by a section of the capitalist press.

You have tried to draw on equivalence between both sides in terms of media attacks. There is no equivalence. Sheridan has been given acres of newsprint by his friends in the Mirror Group to repeatedly smear his opponents, most notoriously the 3 pages in the Daily Record which carried the infamous ‘Scab’ photo montage of the 4 MSPs (and let’s not forget the NINE pages he got the previous day in the Sunday Mail). Your claim appears to be based on a single, plainly indefensible comment by Carolyn Leckie. The statements and press releases by the SSP leadership have used none of this type of language.

At least you have made it clear you find Sheridan’s language distasteful. I note that the CWI Scotland statement quotes Sheridan’s ‘political scab’ remarks without comment. Coming as such in a piece which is over-whelmingly (in fact uncritically) supportive or Sheridan, this amounts to tacit approval. The latest statement does acknowledge political differences with Sheridan but sees no need to distance themselves from any of Sheridan’s media excesses. Not a word on the Record ‘Scab’ issue. Even Sheridan has backed away from that one. So, I have to conclude, that unlike you and me, they approve of what Sheridan has said.

There are other aspects of their statements which concern me. The CWI Scotland statements talk of the ‘minutes’ of the Nov 2004 meeting. They are ‘so-called’, ‘dodgy’. Why the inverted commas on ’minutes’? What does it mean that the minutes are ‘dodgy’? Are they slightly inaccurate or a total fiction? There is a deliberate use of imprecise language here. Either the minutes are accurate and Sheridan in indeed a liar or the minutes have been falsified and Sheridan is the victim of the most monstrous conspiracy. These are the two choices and there is no in-between truth, where we can say, ‘plague on both your houses, it’s because you’re all politically degenerate left nationalists’.

Let’s face it, anyone who has followed this has got to conclude that the minutes are an accurate account of that meeting. Whether or not they should have been kept can be debated but they were kept. So we should not attempt to cloud the issue talking of ‘minutes’ instead of minutes and using terms like ‘dodgy’ and ‘so-called’, but I suspect the CWI comrades in Scotland realise that they have to fudge this issue to make their current position credible. They cannot seriously claim that practically the entire National Executive of the SSP are forgers who have conspired on a massive scale to pervert the course of justice. So instead they use imprecise terms which are open to interpretation, but suggest the minutes are not to be trusted without ever having to spell out why.

Like ‘HS’ I do not believe that this situation is the end result of faction fighting within the former ISM. The ‘historical context’ you have provided does not explain where these supposed ‘2-3 factions’ arose and how they responded to the crisis Sheridan landed them with. There were certainly disagreements with in the ISM on issues such as independence and gender representation but these did not create fault lines that split apart over the Sheridan issue. As far as I can see it has been Sheridan against the rest of the former ISM. The list of those who have come out publicly against Sheridan is a list of those who have been his closest comrades and friends over decades. It is one of the ironies that those who have used Sheridan as a stick to beat the ISM with are now his most enthusiastic supporters. So the idea that this can be put down to personalised falling outs over left nationalism has no substance.

The real fault line in this controversy has been between those who genuinely supported the formation of the SSP and a combination of those whose support for the SSP was more based on Sheridan’s personality than politics and those who have in reality been hostile to the formation of the SSP. In this I would have to include the CWI comrades. The SWP of course were openly hostile to the SSP and only came knocking on the door to join after the SSP had shown it’s potential.

I think both groups have gotten totally carried away by Sheridan’s pyrrhic court victory. Most working class people have been pleased that he won in extraordinary circumstances, against a sleazy rag which they would regard with cynicism, but which contradictorily, many buy and read. But to suggest that this win in court has been greeted almost with dancing in the streets in working class communities is ridiculous. It is equally ridiculous to suggest that it would have provided a platform on which to re-build the SSP.

How this could be claimed as a victory for the entire working class is a mystery. To compare this to say, the victory in the GAMA campaign, is a nonsense. A strike, a mobilisation of the local community, a demonstration, an election victory…there can be many ways in which a victory will inspire the wider working class. But this was a court case pursued by an individual against claims devoid of any political character. This kind of argument sows illusions in ‘heroic’ individualism and even in the nature of the capitalist courts.

The support for Sheridan was wildly overstated and overestimated by his supporters and this is why he failed spectacularly to regain the leadership of the SSP. His court victory did not it appears win him the support of the majority of SSP members, let alone the wider working class. The reality is that it is not the SSP leadership which is ‘tainted’ as the CWI in Scotland have argued, but Sheridan himself. In part this has been because of his vile public abuse of his former comrades after his win, but also because this really was the most extraordinary libel case. Has there ever been another libel case where the allegations have been repeated so freely by all and sundry despite the judgement? This is a clear indication that Sheridan’s position today is very shaky.

Because the SSP leadership is ‘tainted’ the SSP is no longer a vehicle for workers. This is very light-minded thinking indeed. We have always based our attitude to workers parties on the basis of the forces they represent, the class composition of the membership and the existence of democratic structures to work within. We would have worked in very few workers parties if we had only participated in those whose leaderships were not ‘tainted’! In this country we stayed for years within the Labour Party while it’s leaders sat in right-wing governments, not just meekly acquiescing to attacks on the working class, but actually initiating them.

Now, in a matter of weeks, all has changed within the SSP. The workers have left and there is a rump called United Left suspended at the top with no support and hated by working class communities the length and breadth of Scotland. And so it is no longer a vehicle for workers. Had this been the case Sheridan would have romped to the leadership of the SSP. It is precisely because the SSP, though battered and bruised, remains a healthy workers party that Sheridan’s media blitz failed and the membership was politically astute enough not to back him.

Instead we in the CWI will take a chance on a new formation where the comrades even have to make a special point of insisting that the party is explicitly Socialist because Sheridan has publicly mooted his preference for ‘Solidarity’, a sure indication that he is moving in a rightward direction. SP member tells us that we should back Sheridan not because of his popularity but because of his stature amongst the working class. This is a case of spot the difference. Sheridan’s previous stature was immense but he has diminished his position in recent months. Who knows what else will emerge in the future in relation to Sheridan?

The CWI in Scotland should recognise that it is a folly to leave the SSP. It is the same party as a month ago. It is weakened but it is incredible that it is still standing and still pulling the pieces together. In that they deserve all our support. The other route which has been taken on the Sheridan vanity bandwagon with the SWP on board will be a disaster.

by hs - sp (personal capacity) Thu Aug 24, 2006 19:58

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2317328,00.html

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/68365.html

http://www.socialistworld.net

Bad news all round

by Former militant Thu Aug 24, 2006 20:27

The whole thing is absurd. Tommy Sheridan is absurd,. And the position of the CWi is preposterous and unconvincing beyond measure. There isn't an ounce of political principle in it: only a bizarre search for short term sectarian advantage. With Sheridan bent on promoting his own personality at teh expense of everyone around him, even thsi calculation is unlikely to work. The hunt for short cuts where none exists has led it into another disastrous mistake. If the few remaining members are not profoundly disturbed by this, then they must be mad.

by Just wondering.... Thu Aug 24, 2006 22:17

Just wondering how long before Francis McCafferty and HS get the cjop, and are eithe rexpelled or find that they have 'put themselves outside of the organisation.' Isn't the public expression of opiniosn different to that sanctioned by teh leadership supposed to be against democratic centralism? In any event, the fact that two comrades have done so suggests that many in the CWI ranks are very, very uneasy at this situation. And rightly so - the CWI leadership's position is nonsense on stilts.

by John Meehan Fri Aug 25, 2006 00:49

A good summary of the issues is at this link :

http://www.marxsite.com/CWI_SWP_leave_SSP.html

by Sean - SWP - personal capacity Fri Aug 25, 2006 01:48

This article by Mike Gonzalez sums up what the politics - as opposed to personality politics - behind the split are. Any one who took part in the weekend of debate at the time of the G8 summit in Gleneagles last week may already have picked up on some of this at the time...before thole libel case thing.

by Sean Fri Aug 25, 2006 01:49

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id...=9534

by ReSect Watch Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:52

"We can build a new party that welcomes not just existing socialists, but draws in many of the people radicalised by the war or involved in opposing the G8."

The CWI can look forward to joining the Scottish frachise of RESPECT.

by Sean Fri Aug 25, 2006 14:45

Don't see a single mention of RESPECT in Gonzalez's article and, talking to SWP and non-SWP members of the SSP who want to be part of something more than an "Old Labour" party, I don't hear anyone saying they want a "Scottish franchise of RESPECT". As it happens, I think that would be a good way for them to go; unfortunately, Scottish nationalism is so strong that it would be distinctly unlikely.

by Curious Fri Aug 25, 2006 15:03

Isn't he the guy who in court claimed that the minutes were not an accurate reflection of a meeting he wasn't at? Aye, he's a good person to be taking advice from.

by more curious Fri Aug 25, 2006 16:12

"Last week over 120 Socialist Worker supporters in Scotland met and voted unanimously to support this initiative"

SWP platform seems to have shrunk a fair bit since they joined. I wonder does this Unanimous vote mean a sizeable portion of SW platform supporters left over the issue?

by CWI(ing) Shame Fri Aug 25, 2006 16:17

From this in 1998:
"This world congress of the CWI places on record its strongest possible opposition to the decision of SML to launch the Scottish Socialist Party".

to this in 2003 after the success of the SSP in the elections, the CWI said:
"The Scottish Socialist party (SSP) now has six MSPs elected to the Scottish parliament. This important breakthrough can assist socialists to reach a new generation who are looking or an alternative to poverty, low pay, racism and war."

and now in 2006:
We believe the SSP is now effectively finished as a party that could seek to organise and represent the working class of Scotland.

by more curious Fri Aug 25, 2006 16:27

well the comrades are consistent if nothing else

by SP Member - Socialist Party/CWI Fri Aug 25, 2006 21:22

Just a few comments

Francis you stated 'No one has called for Sheridan to be jailed. No one.'

Fances Curran in the NOTW stated "There are liars here and they must be found out and punished."

Eddie Truman (a leading member of the UL) has stated on UKLN that the SSP EC are putting together a dossier of documents that prove Sheridan perjured himself and this dossier will be presented to the police.

As you say the disccusion about possible expulsions is now redundant.

You state 'Your claim appears to be based on a single, plainly indefensible comment by Carolyn Leckie. The statements and press releases by the SSP leadership have used none of this type of language.'

Again on UKLN the following from Eddie Truman in a discussion about members of the SSP EC being interviewed by the NOTW 'We have not taken any money from anybody, only the sex abuser Sheridan has done that'

An slao
'So we have the prospect of a perjurer who goes to sex clubs and uses prostitutes in the same organisation as the CWI and the SWP. Carry On Comrades, it's the Slap and Tickle Party'

Pretty nasty language I would say. There are also many other comments about the need to burn Sheridan at the stake etc.

With regards the minutes - are they dodgy or not? I don't know. However, at the very least, evidence now exists that both Allan Green and Barbara Scott gave false information in evidence to the trial about how many copies of the 'minutes' existed. In reality however the issue is not whether they are accurate or not, but the sheer stupidity of recording them in the first place.

Also don't forget that within a few days of the SSP EC meeting in Nov 2004 a leading member of the SSP had sworn an affadavit to the Scottish Herald detailing the existance of the minutes and their content. This was a set of minutes that everyone agreed was supposed to be kept confidential. What was the purpose of leaking this information other than attempt to shaft Sheridan.

In relation to the politics I think it noteworthy that as late as today Colin Fox issued a press statement that contained the following 'there is no political justification for the two MSPs leaving the group and this move is an indication that Mr Sheridan was abandoning his commitment to an independent Scotland' Note the lack of a mention of the word 'socialism'

As regards the genuine nature of the support of the CWI for the SSP. The CWI is not stupid. The CWI knew that with the ISM abandoning Marxism the potential always existed for it to fracture. This court case just happened to be the issue. If this hadn't come along then somehhing else would have precipiated it. As an aside 'CWI(ing) Shame' should read the documents produced about the split with the ISM rather than taking one sentence completely out of context.

Francis - you are right about GAMA - no argument here.

The CWI is most definitely not getting carried away with the support Sheridan has. This who episode has dealt a serious blow to the foces on the left in Scotland. The end result at this moment will most definitely be the loss of 5 left-wing MSP's from the Scottish Parliament. Sheridan, at best, only has a reasonable chance of holding his seat. The decision to split, from Sheridan's perspective, was not based on Sheridan's inability to win the leadership but on two other factors. 1) Sheridan was unlikely to be top of the SSP list in Glasgow because the UL appear to have majority support in the city. 2) The Scottish Parliament elections are not far off and forming a new party and spending the time preparing for the election would be far more efficient in terms of time and resources than fighting a vicious and devisive battle in the SSP. The abject hatred now being demonstrated by both of the factions of the former ISM is something I have never witnessed before in left wing politics.

No matter how 'honest' and 'genuine' the UL activists are (and there is numerous examples that the actions of many of them are neither) it does not get away from the fact that the SSP is on a steep trajectory to political oblivion. No matter how much the UL think they can recover the lost ground they are living in political cloud cuckoo land. The SSP is finished as a political entity. As for this new party, it has a massive uphill battle to even sustain itself in the short to medium term. No one, particularly the CWI, is under any other illusion. The only hope of salvaging anything from this disasterous mess is the possibility that it might just survive.

I have absolutely no doubt that time will demonstrate the fate of the SSP. They will limp along until the elections and then in all likelyhood implode.

A final comment on the SWP. They are behaving in this whole situation very much as they always do in every other field of their political activity. It is debatable whether they will be an asset to the new party, but obviously Sheridan needs the numbers. Unfortunately the CWI is not big enough in Scotland to place a decisive role but hopefully we can blunt the excesses of the SWP.

This whole issue has been a sorry disaster for the left in Scotland. The decision by the ISM to split from the CWI was a serious political mistake the end result of which we clearly warned about at the time. The role of the ISM has been to shift the SSP to a left reformist/left nationalist position in order to try and take shortcuts. Once the ISM abandoned Marxism this was inevitable (and Sheridan played a substantial role in this). The whole mess has set back the work of building a socialist organisation by years. The question now posed is how can something be salvaged from the mess. If the CWI attached itself to the UL and what will remain of the SSP we would be condemning ourselves to linking with a group of individuals that the 2%-3% of the Scottish electorate who vote SSP view as siding with the NOTW in attacking Sheridan. We would be joining with a political group that will only have a limited survival time and during this time would shift further to a nationalist position (as can be demonstrated by Fox's comments above). It is impossible to predict how the new party will do. But the reality is that it is the only show in town and hopefully we can help give it a political influence that will facilitate its survival.

by John Lennons ghost turning Fri Aug 25, 2006 22:37

I've had enough of reading
things
by nuerotic-pyschotic-
pig headed politicians
all I want is the truth
just give me some truth

Anyone else notices one omission from ‘the whole truth and nothing but the truth officer’ the remains of the SSP have written in this weeks Voice?

It seems that although they doth protest and accuse others of trying to rewrite history, they themselves are doing it time and time again. Absolutely no mention and therefore no explanation of why a certain someone, in November 2004 gave a sworn affidavit to the Herald outlining events of the EC meeting. Do they honestly think that remaining members don’t notice this? Do they not realise this calls into question their honesty and their account of events?

by John Meehan Mon Aug 28, 2006 00:02

The SR statement is at this link :

http://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?page=print_a...=1104

by Patrick Quinn Mon Aug 28, 2006 02:27

The News Of The World - a reactionary rag pre-dominately read and supported by the working class.

How is the Tommy Sheridan verdict a 'victory for the working class'?

by Rab Mon Aug 28, 2006 13:07

One of the SSP's leading nationalists Kevin Williamson has resigned from the SSP saying:

From the point that Tommy Sheridan was replaced as National Convenor by Colin Fox the SSP have (in the realm of practical campaigning work) effectively abandoned the fight for Scottish Independence. This is something that has increasingly alienated and isolated myself from most of the SSP leadership and from the leading lights of the United Left faction.
I am not a supporter or member of the United Left faction, declared or otherwise. I have serious political differences with this grouping. When the UL declared itself an organised platform within the SSP I was one of its critics, attacking it from the outset for its refusing to explicitly embrace the fight for Scottish Independence.

by Francis McCafferty - Socialist Party (personal capacity) Mon Aug 28, 2006 17:35

SP member,

You said:

Frances Curran in the NOTW stated "There are liars here and they must be found out and punished."

Eddie Truman (a leading member of the UL) has stated on UKLN that the SSP EC are putting together a dossier of documents that prove Sheridan perjured himself and this dossier will be presented to the police.

Is that it? As I said no one is calling for Sheridan to be jailed. Given the verdict, they are the ones most likely to face perjury charges and they are going to defend themselves and the integrity of the SSP.

You wrote 3-4 times that the ‘only strategy’ of the SSP leadership was to have Sheridan jailed for perjury. It suited your analysis of an isolated United Left grouping clinging to power at the top of the SSP, unable to resist Sheridan’s ‘SSP Majority’. That turned out to be a fiction as it was clear the ‘Majority’ was anything but.

You said:
As you say the discussion about possible expulsions is now redundant.

Yes, but it was you who claimed that there would be wholesale expulsions of Sheridan supporters if Sheridan failed to re-take the leadership. That was never the case.

You have also trawled through UKLN to find some quotes from United Left member, Eddie Truman, pouring vitriol on Sheridan.

I had pointed out that
‘The statements and press releases by the SSP leadership have used none of this type of language.'

This is in stark contrast to Sheridan who has been afforded the opportunity to denigrate, abuse and insult the SSP leadership in acres of newsprint, front page splashes and banner headlines. Your response is not to condemn Sheridan. ‘Both sides are as guilty’ you say. The CWI in Scotland don’t even go this far. They have been silent as Sheridan has ranted.

You state:
‘With regards the minutes - are they dodgy or not? I don't know.’

You go on to state that it doesn’t matter. This is not the position of the CWI in Scotland. As I pointed out they fudge the issue but as they believe that the allegations against Sheridan are ‘patently untrue’ then it would seem logical that the minutes are not accurate.

Again you trot out the ‘false evidence’ about he number of copies of the minutes. It is laughable that this single detail has been seized upon by Sheridan supporters when they have closed their ears to the torrent of evidence against Sheridan.

You go on:
Francis - you are right about GAMA - no argument here.

But you dodge the point. There was no involvement by any section of the working class in this court case. It was not a victory for the working class. In fact it has become a pyrrhic victory for Sheridan.

SP member, you are right these events have been a disaster for the socialist movement in Scotland and beyond, but your analysis is seriously flawed.

You are starting out with the conclusion that the SSP is now in this weakened position because it’s leadership split with the CWI and drifted towards left nationalism. You are making the facts fit your analysis.
That is why you claim that United Left’s ‘only strategy’ is to have Sheridan jailed. And then they would carry out a purge, expelling all his supporters. No, the unpalatable truth for you is that they took Sheridan on. They pulled forward the conference, defended their position and were supported by more of the membership of the SSP, who no longer trusted Sheridan to lead them. So much so that there was even any point in Sheridan continuing his battle.

You have tried to paint a picture of 2-3 rival unprincipled rival factions firing insults at each other through the media. The factions didn’t exist. Look at the signatures on the ‘SSP Majority’ statement. There’s more CWI than ex-ISM. And the war of words has been rather one-sided. You should be more than a little embarrassed that the Daily Record editorial last week welcomed Tommy’s new party and looked forward to it wiping the floor with the SSP.

by SP member - Socialist Party/CWI Mon Aug 28, 2006 20:26

So Francis - Nobody from the UL wants Sheridan jailed?

The only way that those in the UL can be 'vindicated' is by Sheridan to be charged and found guilty of perjury. If this happens he will be jailed. When Frances Curran states that liars must be found out and punished what does she mean (a) that Sheridan, Rosemary Byrne etc should get a slap on the wrist or (b) charged and found guilty of perjury. Why are the UL putting together a dossier of documents designed to prove Sheridan perjured himself and present them to the cops if they weren't attempting to have a criminal charge bought against him. Come on Francis you have been around long enough - stop trying to split hairs here - the UL want Sheridan shafted and in the most public way possible.

I will repeat it again - the only strategy that the UL currently have is to have Sheridan charged, convicted and jailed. Please indicate how this is not the case. McCoombs etc have been using all resources of the SSP to have a go at Sheridan.

You state "I had pointed out that
‘The statements and press releases by the SSP leadership have used none of this type of language.'"

They may not have used official press releases but by jeysus they have used every other avenue to engage in in this type of activity. You suggest that I trawled through UKLN to find a couple of isolated incidences where individuals abused Sheridan. In fact there is so much of it out there that if I did actually spend some time putting it together you would be here for a week reading it.

Let's deal with the minutes -

The facts -

Barbara Scott recorded minutes at the meeting on Nov 9 2004. During the court case Barbara Scott stated that she gave her handwritten notes to Allan Green and Green stated that he had destroyed them when he had produced a type-written copy of the minutes. Both of these statements were false as two days after the case Barbara Scott handed her written notes to the Lothian police to be used in their investigation into perjury.

The SSP EC majority consistantly claim that these minutes were an accurate reflection of the meeting. However, at the SSP EC meeting on Nov 24 2004 these minutes were never ratified, Allan Green claimed that the minutes would not be circulated as the previous meeting had agreed to keep them confidential. The SSP EC have consistantly been asked to provide proof that these minutes were ratified at the meeting and have consistantly failed to do so. Indeed only a small number of EC members (all of them UL) knew what was recorded in these so called minutes.

It has also emerged that 8 members of the SSP EC (again all UL) met privately prior to the SSP EC meeting on Nov 9 2004 and drew up a strategy to deal with Sheridan. In effect Sheridan was ambushed at the meeting without realising it.

Frances you state
'It is laughable that this single detail has been seized upon by Sheridan supporters when they have closed their ears to the torrent of evidence against Sheridan.'

However the UL has been just as vociferous in seizing upon this so-called 'false minute' that Sheridan is supposed to have leaked, which the UL claim led to the naming of the members of the SSP EC and them being called to give evidence in court. This single detail is even more 'laughable' that your contention. The membership of the EC of the SSP is a matter of public record and once the NOTW became aware of the existance of the so-called minute (as a result of a member of UL leaking the information to the Scottish Herald) they would have had no difficulty at all in finding the names of those to call to court.

Francis - you claim that I dodge the point in relation to GAMA. Absolutely not. Victories for the working class come in all shapes and sizes. Ask youself this question - Which of these scenarios would be more of a victory for the working class of Scotland (1) Tommy Sheridan defeats a right-wing reactionary toe-rag of a newpaper the NOTW to general acclaim amongst voters of the SSP or (2) Tommy Sheridan is proved to be a lying bastard which the NOTW would have then used to shaft every socialist in Scotland (including members of the UL). It is absolutely incredible to me that any socialist would want to see Sheridan lose to the NOTW (irrespective of what he does in his private life).

You claim my analysis of the situation that has developed in the SSP is seriously flawed. This is hardly surprising given your support for the strategy of the ISM at the time of their decision to liquidate Scottish Militant Labour into the SSP. I reject this and in my opinion events have proved me and the CWI correct. The CWI argued at the time that without the political understanding derived from Marxism it was inevitable that the SSP would move towards reformism and left nationalism and would attempt to take political short-cuts to attempt to drive their political agenda forward. As the ISM developed this political outlook they moved further and further away from having the political understanding necessary to be able to analyse developments within the Scottish working class. These things happened. The CWI did not want them to happen but always knew that this development was likely. Reformist formations can move to the left but the possibility is unusual if not excluded for a revolutionary organisation to move in any direction except to the right, once they abandon Marxism. The vitriolic nature of the dispute within the SSP would have led to expulsions irrespective of which side won (if anyone chose to stay after the bloodbath in October). Don't be under any illusions that it would have been otherwise.

Like it or not Francis the SSP is finished - from here on in it is a sinking ship. I couldn't give two fiddlers what the Daily Record says. Sheridan has used the media to his advantage just as the UL have used the SSP apparatus for the same purpose. The war of words has been vicious on both sides, particularly in the branches of the SSP. It has been a disaster - and the disaster has been directly as a result of the strategy of the UL since Nov 2004. Sheer stupidity on their part. Hopefully this new party will survive - personally I have my doubts - I think there is a distinct possibility that Sheridan will ride off into the celebrity sunset. But irrespective of this there is absolutely no point in the CWI remaining with the UL, indeed they would not want or accept us. They have no understanding or acknowledgement of their failures in this mess, and this is a serious flaw that will led them to even greater and greater isolation from the working class. They have engaged in as much manipulation and underhand activity as Sheridan and they are now embarked on a path that is heading in only one direction - political oblivion or the SNP.

by Non-SP member Mon Aug 28, 2006 20:56

Reading the contributions of SP member to this thread would give any sensible person a pain in the head. It's embarrassing to watch someone perform such mental contortions so they don't have to face up to the facts. You know perfectly well that Sheridan is a shameless liar, anyone who's been following this saga would have to draw that conclusion, and your own organisation admits as much when it falls back on the line "it doesn't matter who's telling the truth". The obvious relish with which you predict the doom of the SSP also speaks volumes. A poor advert for Leninism all told, and the CWI in particular ...

Fair play to Francis McCafferty for taking an honest line

by SP Member - Socialist Party/CWI Mon Aug 28, 2006 23:18

It is with utter dismay that I view the current situation. I have been around left wing politics long enough to know that the possibilities that existed for the SSP do not come around that often.

The disaster that has befallen the SSP is directly as a result of the tactics and strategy employed by the now UL. And even worse they are unable to see this. If they were able to stand back and look at the f**k up they made and admit their mistakes, there might be some hope - but the mantra is 'its all Sheridan's fault'. You may view my contributions as mental contortions but you should attempt to consider the fall-out from this who episode from both sides - not just siding with one. I have spent, probably, too much time trying to figure out the antics of both sides and you could argue that the best thing to say is 'a plague on both their houses', but in the circumstances we don't have the luxury of such a position.

It pains me to say that in my view the remains of the SSP as constituted as the UL is doomed. I wish it were otherwise. There is no place for sentimentality in revolutionary politics. You have to call it like it is. I see no future for the SSP and I take absolutely no pleasure is saying so. Personally I am more than a little skeptical about the possibility of the new SSSM party surviving. But this is now how the cards lie. One formation that is fininshed and another that may survive. Who would you choose?

The CWI has been consistant and I agree with the position of the International Socialists in Scotland. The SSP EC f**ked up by recording a minute, demonstrated their intention by leaking its existance and attempted to shaft Sheridan by claiming the high moral ground. The are now viewed as a group that sided with the rag that is the NOTW. Against all odds Sheridan won the case, and irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the case, the politics of Scotland are now altered. It is necessary to try and salvage something for the debacle and the only prospect of doing this is with the SSSM.

by seedot Tue Aug 29, 2006 00:51

How big was nationalism an undercurrent here? One of the attacks on the solidarity project is that it is inherently unionist - and that this also explains the attraction for the CWI and possibly SWP?

Do you believe that in the common campaigning with nationalism the project was becoming less socialist in its politics? And was the Sheridan case just the form the split took which was based on constitutional issues, a split that was going to happen anyway?

Also whats the craic with the T&G miners? Are their representatives some of your trade union activists, SP member?

by John Meehan Wed Aug 30, 2006 01:52

The SSP holds a public meeting next weekend :
Unity, Integrity, Socialism !
Saturday September 2nd, 4pm-6pm
Central Station Hotel, Glasgow

Speakers include John McAllion

Further Useful links on the Sheridan/SWP/CWI Split :

http://www.scottishsocialistparty.org/pages/centrepages.htm

http://www.scottishsocialistparty.org/pages/voice01.htm

Socialists in Ireland should send a short solidarity greeting to the SSP Rally.

by pat c Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:51

Would you give your own views on the SSP split? Maybe you could clarify things. I have to admit I am not convinced that those remaining with the SSP are on the side of the angels.

by Observer Wed Aug 30, 2006 15:06

Interesting letter from Kevin Williamson
by Topper Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:23
I'm not at all convinced by SP member's attempts to show that the UL faction were responsible for what happened - the whole mess could have been avoided if Tommy Sheridan had simply made a decision not to bring a libel action on the basis of bare-faced lies. If he had followed one of the courses of action suggested to him by others in the leadership two years ago, it all would have blown over by now and there would be no crisis in the SSP.

Whatever mistakes were made by others, the overwhelming responsibility has to rest on Sheridan's shoulders. That is, unless you believe that Sheridan is telling the truth, but it's hard to believe that anyone could be so naive, when the evidence against him is so damning. As far as long-term prospects go, any new party or alliance led by Sheridan will be an ego-vehicle. Sheridan considered himself to be bigger and more important than the SSP, so he will expect any new organisation to subordinate itself to his personality. God help the CWI if they think that's the way ahead for the Left in Scotland.

Anyway, at this stage the die is cast. Sheridan is leaving the SSP, which is probably for the best, since there won't be a destructive power struggle within the party. Anyone who chooses to follow him is free to do so, but they can't claim they don't know what they're getting themselves in for. The balance of probability seems to me exactly the opposite of what SP member suggests - the rump SSP has some chance of surviving, although they're bound to lose a lot of the ground they've made over the last 8 years. The new Sheridan vehicle is doomed from the start - if Sheridan's personality wasn't enough to drag it down, the mutual loathing between the CWI and the SWP will make things even worse.

What's important now is to get back to talking about serious political questions that arise from the experience of the SSP - there's been enough energy spent on who Sheridan was shagging and all the rest of it. The open letter by Kevin Williamson (someone posted a link a few posts up this thread) is a good starting-point. I don't have any first-hand experience of the SSP, so it was interesting to read his account.

According to Williamson, after the successes in the 2003 assembly elections, there was a shift in focus towards the parliamentary reps and their activity that undermined grassroots activity in the party. This is important to look at, because there's a danger that this will happen with any party that gets involved in parliamentary politics, no matter how radical they are to start off with. Some would say that the answer is not to contest elections at all. I don't agree with this, but I'd like to hear from people in the SSP how they think the danger of focusing too much on parliamentary work could be minimised (the chances are they'll lose some if not all of their seats at the next election, so they'll have to draw up a balance sheet from the experience anyway).

The rest of the open letter contains some interesting points. I agree with Williamson that the radical left has to recognise the need for pluralism and diversity within the movement, and abandon the idea that one party can provide leadership for all the social struggles going on. I think he may be in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water though - it's possible to accept the need for diversity, and still believe that it's essential to have a party (or parties) that can bring together activists from different social movements around a coherent strategy. Otherwise the energy from all of the various struggles will lack focus, and find it very difficult to challenge state and corporate power.

Williamson is right to say that traditional vanguardist notions of party organisation should be ditched - the idea that the revolutionary party works out the correct programme, then goes to the people and educates them til they support that programme, needs to go. It should be a two-way process, with the party or movement taking on board ideas that come from the communities they are active in. A party should see its role as being to help people to find their own voice, not to speak on their behalf. How far the SSP has gone down this path, I can't say from the outside, but it's something the party activists should be asking themselves.

At any rate, it's far more productive to be spending time and energy considering these questions, instead of arguing the toss over Sheridan's antics (not that you can blame people for getting sucked into that argument - when the SSP is facing such a major crisis, it's impossible to avoid discussing the circumstances that led to that crisis).

One final point - SP member has said several times on this thread that the ISM 'abandoned Marxism' when they broke with the CWI. I really don't know what this means to be honest. Unless they issued a statement informing people that 'we no longer consider ourselves Marxists', which I don't think they did. How can anyone say for sure what Marx himself would think if he was alive today? How would he have revised his ideas to take account of everything that's happened since 1883?

Naturally, we can make a few guesses - I'd bet my life that Marx would not be a supporter of Tony Blair, nor would he be an admirer of Kim Jong Il. Beyond that, there's no way of being sure, unless you think you can summon the ghost of Marx and ask him. And there's no consensus from his self-proclaimed followers either - if you asked ten different Marxists what it means to be a Marxist today, the chances are you'd get ten different answers.

So when SP member says that the ISM abandoned Marxism, it really means that they abandoned the particular interpretation of Marxism favoured by the CWI, who are themselves a small minority among the people who still consider themselves Marxists in today's world. If you think that the ISM made the wrong political decisions, that's fine, explain why. But when you charge people with 'abandoning Marxism', you're drifting away from political debate and towards theology, which isn't exactly helpful.

by Lech Wed Aug 30, 2006 15:11

Good to see it won't be solely appealing to the Islamic community like down south and will be reaching out to the Polish community. Good choice of name Tommy.

by Libertarian Anorak Wed Aug 30, 2006 16:37

Tommy's new comrades can spend the first couple of months deciding whether the new is the same as the organisation that was set up in that east european state capitalist state or was that the deformed workers state.
Equally it could also be getting named after the very interesting revolutionary syndicalist organisation from the 60's. Chris Pallis (Maurice Brinton) wrote an excellent pamphlet that should be compulsory reading for all socialists - The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control .
But the more contemporary use of the name could be very troubling. It is the union of British workers who named it after Solidarnosc.

by Solidarity Wed Aug 30, 2006 21:13

Solidarity - A new movement for socialism in Scotland

This meeting believes we share a historic responsibility to provide people in Scotland with a socialist alternative to the pro-market agendas of New Labour, Tories, Liberal Democrats and the SNP. Many working class voters are so disillusioned with politicians that they do not vote at all.

The war in Iraq and Afghanistan continues its deadly course and Lebanon lies in ruins; this is the latest stage in a regional conflict at the root of which lies the same free-market agenda that has devastated working class communities the length and breadth of Scotland. Immigrant communities are under attack, Islamaphobia is on the rise and our civil liberties continue to be undermined.

The scale of anger and disillusionment with New Labour is growing and the need for that socialist alternative is more urgent than ever. Sadly, the SSP is no longer able to play that role.

We agree it is now only possible to take the socialist movement forward by immediately launching a new political party that will become, in time, the broad party of socialism in Scotland - bigger, better and bolder than that which has gone before, a fresh movement with an attractive, pioneering, and inclusive spirit, welcoming to all who join, irrespective of ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation or disability.

We will demonstrate SOLIDARITY WITH those fighting against low pay and oppression. SOLIDARITY AGAINST poverty and discrimination in all its forms. SOLIDARITY FOR an independent socialist nuclear free Scotland.

Our new party will be

A campaigning movement - against social injustice and poverty, for a decent living wage and pensions for all, against hospital closures and local service cuts, for empowered communities and trade union rights, in opposition to racist discrimination and bigotry and all forms of oppression, for our civil liberties, and for public ownership and democratic control of our major industries, land and assets.

A democratic movement - for an independent socialist Scotland, a modern pluralist republic that harnesses our collective energies, talents and wealth for the benefit of all our citizens while safeguarding and respecting individual freedom in all its aspects.

A workers movement - that will support trade unionists and all workers in struggle, fighting for the rights of workers in Scotland and internationally whether or not they are already organised in a trade union, for the repeal of all anti-trade union laws.

An anti-war movement - opposing all imperialist wars wherever they occur and the current occupations of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine.

A grass roots movement - that will be active in campaigning around the issues that matter in all parts of Scotland, from the borders to the Northern Isles, from the Hebrides to the oil rigs of the North Sea, in our streets, in our communities and our workplaces, reaching out to people, and engaging in constructive political debate.

An environmentalist movement - campaigning against new nuclear power stations and for the removal of Trident nuclear missiles from the banks of the Clyde, campaigning positively for massive investment in renewable technologies, and a truly integrated and modern publicly owned transport system, for environmental justice for all.

A young peoples movement - that aspires to be the natural political home for young people, supporting campaigns for a decent minimum wage, free education and affordable housing.

An internationalist movement - committing ourselves to solidarity with working and oppressed peoples in struggle across the globe, engaging with and supporting international resistance to capitalism, neo-liberalism and globalisation.

A socialist movement - that fights for the redistribution of wealth from big business and the millionaires to working class people and their families.

We call on everyone who shares our vision to join us.

by John Meehan Thu Aug 31, 2006 01:19

Hi Pat,

You ask what are my views on this dispute.

You may not have read my contribution earlier on this thread :

"CWI Statement Clarifies the Differences Over the Sheridan Libel Case" - - my opinion is expressed there.

I see no reason to add anything else at this stage - not least because I agree with the general line of most SSP supporters on this thread.

I will be sending a message of support to the SSP rally next Saturday along these lines - I hope others do the same.

by pat c Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:55

Thanks for that. I had missed your contribution. While there are genuine contributions on this story-line theres a lot of abuse floating around as well. Unfortunately the honestly expressed comments often get lost in a heap of dross from both sides.

by hs - sp (Personal capacity) Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:59

It will be interesting how the party is organised and how democratic its internal structures will be. And how the party officers are elected, only then will we see if solidarity is a step forward or back. Then we can judge whether it will be a Tommy Sheridan vehicle or a viable left party. Its program and relationship with the class will come from these structures.

by Observer Thu Aug 31, 2006 11:33

HS - you now seem willing to be optimistic or at least have an open mind on this new formation. I do not see how this is justified. You say for example that a key test is how democratic this new party will be. Very well - but isn't the SSP already democratic????

It for example decided to exercise its right of recall over Sheridan. He simply refused to accept this, and has now elected to elect a new party (without an ounce of political disagreement) rather than accept the democratic verdict of his closest colleagues. This augers badly in my view - it suggests a personality driven organisation with Sheridan as a new George Galloway, and the fractious elements of the CWP and CWI vying for position as well. How can the formation of a new party possibly be justified on these grounds? The very last thing that the working class needs or can benefit from is yet another new party of the left. The sectarianism of it is breathtaking, the position of your organisation (with which you seem naturally dissatisfied) wholly untenable.

by hs-sp Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:53

I wasn't being optimistic at all... its a pretty nuetral comment, a wait and see if anything. you read the "glass is half full" from my comment, most likely its half empty.

by hs-sp Thu Aug 31, 2006 12:53

I wasn't being optimistic at all... its a pretty nuetral comment, a wait and see if anything. you read the "glass is half full" from my comment, most likely its half empty.

by Rab Thu Aug 31, 2006 13:39

"only then will we see if solidarity is a step forward or back."

Surely a party being set up to house the ego of Sheridan and to facilitate the hatred of two small groups for McCoombes/Curran, who mistakenly believe that they can harness that ego to suit their own ends, is a step back. All that is happening here is that we are seeing the creation of an inferior Galloway. Only difference being that Tommy is likely to end up on ITV's Z list Celebrity Love Island rather than CH4's Big Brother.

by Eamon Thu Aug 31, 2006 16:12

Having watched Sheridan on Newsnight two days ago, it is clear that he is speaking the SWP's language in relation to the misnamed 'Solidarity' organisation. Sheridan waffled on at length about building an outward looking movement, in contrast to the supposedly 'inward' looking SSP. This sort of nonsense is standard fare within the SWP, and they have been justifying their decision to foment a split within the SSP on precisely this basis for the last few months. It may simply be opportunism on Sheridan's behalf that he is talking this way, and borrowing ideas from the SWP, but it shows who he is listening to at this point in time.

As for the CWI, it is obvious that their attempts to get Sheridan to support their 'Campaign for a New Workers' Party' has failed completely. There will be no move by Sheridan in this direction. Instead, the forthcoming period will see the Great Leader move closer to the SWP, and continue to raid that party for ideas and policies. The CWI will be left out in the cold. I predict that at some point in the not-too-distant future the CWI will split once more from an organisation dominated by the SWP. They did this in England, with the Socialist Alliance, and they will do so again in Scotland.

Courtesy of their opportunism and willingness to abandon socialist principles, the result for the CWI will be even greater political and organisational marginalisation.

And this in a country where they are virtually irrelevant as it is.

by Sean Thu Aug 31, 2006 18:05

Before I make up my mind whose side I'm on, and its looking like neither, I would ask all to give me your opinion on the following questions.

How much did the poor election results heighten bickering in the SSP?

Was the court case the 'icing on the cake' and the 'excuse' for a struggle that already existed?

Was TS given too much of a profile, after all, socialists are supposed to be about policies not personalities?

Is it fair for SSP members to equate TS alleged wrong-doings as an endorsement of the slave trade, and general oppression of women?

Is it fair or proper for TS to label female SSP members 'femanazis'?

What is a socialist analysis of the "problem of prostitution"?

are we not all slaves under capitalism?

Is the 'platform' model of socialist realignment a dead end?

Has the SWP made a correct analysis of the crisis in the SSP or has it been opportunistic?

Has the SP/CWI made the correct analysis or is it 'pay back' for the split in militant?

Is the left growth in Scotland hopelessly derailed?

What next for scottish socialism?

by Steve Greene - Haveaguess Thu Aug 31, 2006 22:50

Sean,
“How much did the poor election results heighten bickering in the SSP?”
Disappointing results often tend to exacerbate tensions by forcing people to confront difficult questions that can be swept to one side during good times.
“Was the court case the 'icing on the cake' and the 'excuse' for a struggle that already existed?”
Not sure I agree with your phraseology but if people are prepared to leak to the gutter press then things are likely to be embittered already. I think it is always important to rise above the noise of personal disputes and dirty work at the crossroads to concentrate on the politics in situations like this.
“Was TS given too much of a profile, after all, socialists are supposed to be about policies not personalities?”
For SWP (Britain)’s take on this see Chris Harman’s article in current Socialist Worker.
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id...=9565
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id...=9564
“Is it fair for SSP members to equate TS alleged wrong-doings as an endorsement of the slave trade, and general oppression of women?

Is it fair or proper for TS to label female SSP members 'femanazis'?”
See my comment to your second question for my opinion.
“What is a socialist analysis of the "problem of prostitution"?

are we not all slaves under capitalism?”
Big question but issues such as oppression of women; alienated sexuality; poverty, etc are all relevant. I don’t believe (usually male) socialists should use prostitutes. I think most on the left would agree.
“Is the 'platform' model of socialist realignment a dead end?”
I don’t think there is a model set in stone. I think the key is to be inclusive and outward looking in this period. Particular forms of organisation are secondary to the political project. As you probably guess I am sympathetic to the Respect project, but I repeat: There is no model set in stone. The main thing is the left needs to relate to the movements and radicalisation among sizable numbers of people and then it can be completely flexible on tactics.
“Has the SWP made a correct analysis of the crisis in the SSP or has it been opportunistic?”
I think they are about right, but I wouldn’t expect to convince anyone on the strength on my opinion. Judge for yourself, I’ve given links to SWP thinking above.
“Has the SP/CWI made the correct analysis or is it 'pay back' for the split in militant?”
I don’t believe you can reduce the question to “pay-back”. Not sure whether SP/CWI can grasp the nettle and emancipate itself from the traditional sectarianism that has been a feature of all the left heretofore. What do you think?
“Is the left growth in Scotland hopelessly derailed?

What next for scottish socialism?”
Nothing is hopeless. It depends on what people do. When Marx wrote that we must prove the “this-sidedness” of our thinking in practice, I take it to mean that it not just a matter of holding an opinion, but acting to make your opinion a reality, testing the results in practice, learning, adapting and acting some more. I think there are many socialists in Scotland who want make a go of Solidarity. They will have to learn and adapt, as all of us who are active have to. Time will tell. I wish them luck.
Sean, thank you for lifting the discussion above the rancorous lobbing of accusations to and fro and onto a more political plane. I would be interested in others’ opinions on the questions you raise.
Steve

by John Meehan Thu Aug 31, 2006 23:51

John McAllion's statement is at this link :

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/69115.html

It appears the Sheridan/CWI/SWP SSSM is a three in a bed party.

by pat c Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:10

Just heard from a Scottish comrade who attended an SSP fundraising barbecue. They burned an effigy of Tommy Sheridan at it.

by Duke Harv Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:41

McAllion was somebody who the CWI placed great store in. So much so that they got the SSP to agree not to run against him (the official Labour candidate) in the last Scottish Parliament elections in their own heartland Dundee. Just keeps on getting worse.

by Ambre Fri Sep 01, 2006 11:46

"Just heard from a Scottish comrade who attended an SSP fundraising barbecue. They burned an effigy of Tommy Sheridan at it."

They were probably only tanning it.

by Rab Fri Sep 01, 2006 13:22

Rosemary Byrne said: "This is not a party just for ex-SSP members - it is open to all who share our vision of an independent socialist republic in Scotland."

Independent - surely not Rosemary? What about the SWP and CWI? They cannae have that.

by Eamon Fri Sep 01, 2006 19:03

To the poster who reckoned the SWP analysis was 'just about right', I can only assume that you have had no involvement in the ScottishSocialist Party and know little of the reality that lies behind SWP rhetoric on this issue.

To put you straight: when the SWP talk about the SSP being 'inward looking' and unwilling to work with other radical forces etc, what they mean is that the SSP is unwilling to affiliate itself to all and every front organisation set up by the SWP. That is the real problem for the SWP. To dress it up as anything other than that is completely at odds with the reality of the situation within the party.

The whole point of setting up the SSP was to unify the Left in Scotland, and to build working relationships with all groups in Scotland which considered themselves to be socialist. It is nonsense to describe such a party as inward looking.

This is especially so when the chief accusers are an undemocratic, sectish, London-controlled grouping who were totally opposed to the formation of the broad-based pluralist organisation that is the SSP in 1998, and only joined in 2001 because they knew they had backed the wrong horse in that particular debate.

by Saoirse Fri Sep 01, 2006 20:09

I have some experience of the SSP, having lived in Glasgow until early 2004 and been part of SSP then. But when I returned to Scotland in the run-up the G8 summit, it seemed to me that the SSP was almost ossified. It WAS 'inward-looking' by which I mean the McCombes lot didn't want anything to do with what they called the 'studenty' or 'trendy lefty' anti-capitalist movement. Their workerist approach was like a caricature of the worst of the old left and the only people who backed my arguments about the need for the SSP to be at the heart of the mobilisation against the G8 were the SWP platform and some people around Tommy Sheridan. In fairness, Colin Fox came around to the idea but whatever people think about them, if it hadn't been for the SWP platform and people like Gill Hubbard within that platform bringing the younger (newer) SSP people a whole range of non-SSP people along with them, the alternative G8 summit would not have happened in Edinburgh and the SSP would have completely ABSTAINED from the events around the G8.

None of the above is what Eamon calls SWP-speak. It's just the truth. That's why I will be backing the new party, because I think the SSP will fossilise if left to those who so vehemently opposed the 'trendy lefty types who are more interested in the WTO than in working class struggle' to quote one of them. They are Dave Spart caricatures

by John Meehan Sun Sep 03, 2006 22:27

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5307316.stm

"Life of Brian" goes to Glasgow - People's Front, Liberation Movement, or, it Tommy's inimitable language, a "carcass".

by Steve Greene Sun Sep 03, 2006 23:44

Looks like the launch of the new Scottish party was a success.

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id...=9610

by Glasgae Lad Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:40

Solidarity showed signs of its Socialist Workers platform being an influential player, just as it is in George Galloway's Respect party, with which Mr Sheridan has already agreed a non-aggression pact.

by Eamon Mon Sep 04, 2006 17:21

You might have tried to dress it up differently, but it remains SWP speak all the same. Whatever about the debate concerning the specific tactics and mode of engagement that the SSP had with the G8 protests, one thing cannot be denied: that it was still by far the most active and visible socialist political party before, during, and after the G8 conference period. The tactics can and have been debated within the SSP, but the fact of the party's activity cannot be gainsaid. Put it this way, that there were far more SSP activists at Auchterarder than there were SWP is indisputable.

The G8 protests and the wider anti-war movement are undoubtedly important, but they did not and, in the case of the anti-war movement, do not constitute the only arena of class politics in Scotland. The issues that the SSP have fought on over the last number of years--the need to abolish the council tax, the campaign for free school meals and free NHS prescriptions etc are actually the ones that have a far greater resonance with working class people all over Scotland. Anyone who has ever stood on an SSP stall will soon realise that that is the case.

This is not to denigrate anti-war work. The SSP has consistently involved itself in such activity and will take no lectures from the SWP on the importance of it. At the same time, however, whilst the SSP combines domestic campaigns with those relating to the anti-war movement, the SWP take a very different approach. That party have had virtually no involvement in the domestic campaigns that I referred to and on many occasions have condemned those in the party who realise their importance and act accordingly.

There is of course a historical context for all of this. The truth is that over the past 20 years, the SWP have played very little role in the struggles of the Scottish working class. During the likes of the miners strike, the poll tax, the timex dispute, the caterpillar strike, the firefighters strike, the nursery nurses etc, it has been activists who are now part of the SSP leadership who have played a far more decisive role. I know of one dispute where the SWP tried to intervene, but, such was the tosh that their rep was coming out with that, unlike the Scottish Militant labour reps, who remained centrally involved, they were asked to leave a strike committe meeting. Of course Tommy Sheridan has been involved in all of these disputes, but, crucially, all of this activity took place within an organisation that he now is trying to destroy.

The SWP have scorned Sheridan for almost 20 years, but now, because it suits their own narrow, irredeemably sectarian agenda (and anyone who has ever encountered the SWP in action will know full well how sectish they can be) they are supporting him. So too of course are the same CWI comrades (about 15 activists if they are lucky) who have been abusing him as a stalinist and a reformist nationalist since 2001. In the process of doing so, they have stooped to the level of those in 1930s Russia, who worshipped at the temple of Josef Stalin, and erected the most monstrous cult of personality in doing so.

The origins of the new organisation that saoirse supports lies not in political principle, but in the ego of one individual. It is a completely unjustifiable, and, frankly, quite disgraceful development and one that will serve only to weaken the Left in Scotland, and throughout Britain.

But all of that is apparently ok, if you belong to the SWP

by Observer Tue Sep 05, 2006 10:33

See interesting article from 1992 by Ted Grant on socialism and nationalism in Scotland, and predicting a miserable end for the then miserable Scottish Militant Labour. It rather seems to have come true, with the presenht ruination of the SSP:

http://www.marxist.com/scotland-nationalism-socialism-t...t.htm

by Baffled Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:41

i quickly scanned through Ted's article. It barely meantions the role SML played in the poll tax, hardly miserable!

by Observer Tue Sep 05, 2006 12:04

Sorry, when I used the miserable in relation to SML, it was a typo!

However, I think Ted makes many interesting and valuable points about the organisation's future, whatever immediate successes it appeared to be having at the time.

by Student Grant Tue Sep 05, 2006 12:56

Ted should have spent more time analysing his own political direction and his slavish belief in the sanctity of the Labour Party in the UK. He should have predicted the demise of the Militant from a faction that operated as a secret society within the LP and the difference the SSP structure offered. Ted rejected Irish independence and ergo Scottish and Welsh self determinism. A fact that his fans in Ireland often overlook

by Observer Tue Sep 05, 2006 13:46

I suppose Ted was an internationalist rather than a nationalist. I fail to see what is so fabulous about the idea of Irish 'independence' anyway - how can you solve the country's problems in today's globalised world by having an Irish bourgois regime rather than a British one. and by separating the struggles of working people here from those across the water? In any event, the whole notion of independence is a myth, so long as major industry is owned by multinational companies who can go and do as they please. Down with nationalist illusions!

by Saoirse Tue Sep 05, 2006 14:19

Eamon can rant and rave about the SWP as much as he wants - and many of us would have a certain sympathy. But as long as he does not answer the actual issues, then we would have to conclude that his rantings are a smokescreen to cover his inability to answer the issues I raised. I never for a moment suggested that there were more SWP people at the G8 than SSP. What I said was that there would have been no organised SSP intervention in those events were it not for the arguments put forward by the SWP platform and the fact that they had won Sheridan and people around him to that position.

Does Eamon deny that the McCombes wing had been describing anti-capitalist protestors as 'trendy lefties' and 'a bunch of middle class students'? No, he cannot deny this because he knows it to be true. This issue goes to the heart of what was wrong with the fossilising SSP. Personally, I thought that the G8 events might have re-invigorated it and brought it into the 21st century. It looked like it was going to, but then the leadership seem to have decided to go down the Old Labour road - concentrating only on building their electoral profile (quite unsuccessfully!)

by student Grant Tue Sep 05, 2006 14:43

You can be an internationalist and not believe that England, nay London, is the centre of the universe. Does Observer believe that the comentern was correct to issue edicts on building revolution in countries throughout the world? Well Grant and his errant children in the CWI socialist Party do.

by SVP* Watch Wed Sep 06, 2006 13:59

I can't be absolutely certain, but I'm fairly sure that it is the only political party ever to be launched with the leader being serenaded with The Impossible Dream, sung by his mother.
Welcome to Solidarity - Scotland's Socialist Movement.
[continues]

*Sheridans Vanity Project
Isn't Tony Benn right? "... there are too many socialist parties and not enough socialists "

by John Meehan Wed Sep 06, 2006 23:09

See below an interesting well-written eye-witness account of Glasgow's two socialist rallies last weekend.
Author : Jim Jepps
Story at this link :
socialistunitynetwork.co.uk/news/sspsplit07.htm

by the impossible dream Thu Sep 07, 2006 13:26

The Iinternational Socialists (CWI Scotland) are worried about the influence of the SWP in SOLIDARITY.....

Quote:

"There will be important discussions taking place in the new party over what type of party is needed at this time. The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) want Solidarity - SSM to adopt the political approach of ‘Respect’, in England, which has failed to emerge as a genuine left or socialist alternative for working class people because it has based its appeal on only one section of the population and did not put forward socialist policies".

Read Full article "Build a class-based socialist Party" at link:

by John Meehan Thu Sep 07, 2006 23:56

Listen and view at this link :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi/bb_wm_f...17322

by John Meehan Fri Sep 08, 2006 00:00

Details are this link :

http://www.scottishsocialistparty.org/

by Ha Ha Fri Sep 08, 2006 01:02

poll was taken without reference to the new Solidarity SMS party. In all likelihood the 6% actually reflects Sheridan's stomping of the NOTW.

This is really a case of both your crowd and the SSP grasping at straws.

by Tam the Bam Fri Sep 08, 2006 11:26

Dont know bout the future of the SSP but I'd bet ma life on it that Tam's Solidarity - SnM party will soon implode. Already the CWI are gettin worked up about the SW's influence, clear for all to see at the rally on Sunday. This particular bunch o numpties will soon be too busy fightin each other to worry about their former comrades. As Ali G would say: respect (or should that be Respect?).

by Mel S Sat Sep 09, 2006 20:22

Concerns about SWP influence aside, the new party is the only way forward for the Left in Scotland. Let's be honest, the SSP in its current state is moribund and unlikely to be serious contender at the next round of Scottish elections. Surely time for a serious self-appraisal on the part of the current SSP leadership; this is their debt to the Scottish people after the treachery that has gone before.

by Solidarity Mon Sep 11, 2006 20:06

'There certainly is a geographical aspect to the split with the north and south being mainly strongholds of Sheridan and the central belt (Edinburgh and Glasgow regions) being more strongly SSP.'

There is no Edinburgh region in the SSP. Edinburgh is part of the Lothian region. The majority of activists in Lothian have left the SSP. With the Edinburgh East & Musselburgh Branch voting 18 to 0 to leave.

The Solidarity Rally ended with the Internationale.

by Nose Peg Mon Sep 11, 2006 21:21

Now I wonder why all those hardy sons and daughters of toil left the SSP, maybe, just maybe, cos the Edinburgh East & Musselburgh Branch = almost 100% SW members.

London calling! London calling! Can you hear me Edinburgh? Scrap old directive: 'Tommy bad nationalist, reformist'. New Directive: lick Tommy's arse...no not literally you fool.... SWimidarity: Building a new (bowel) movement.

by Mel S Tue Sep 12, 2006 20:13

I think you've been swimming with the faeces for way too long; time for a cold shower and a political reality check. For years this country has been calling out for a party to champion the work of past comrades - Republican Chartists, Land Leaguers, Scottish Labour Party (original version!) and John MacLean's Scottish Workers Republican Party. As it stands, Solidarity appears to tick all the boxes and is the only serious Marxist alternative on offer to take this work forward with the electorate in Scotland.

I think you can take it as read - although I've admittedly yet to see a full Solidarity manifesto - that the new party will seek to build a mass movement of the working class to oust the control of Scotland from Westminster. This will hopefully be a long-term "democratic" aim that will ultimately lead to the development of a multi-cultural society that that is based on common ownership. I say long-term as this isn't going to happen over night; so patience and discipline will be required. What other party has the ability or courage to build the foundations required for change?

Let's be clear; this isn't about a one-person ego trip, this is about a new party that can unite working people and lead them towards independence in a socialist state. Name one other credible party that can work within Holyrood and deliver this type of change?

Within the current climate, a move towards true Scottish independence and the formation of a Scottish Socialist Republic can only be achieved by Solidarity as it is clear that the SSP has became rudderless and is about to run aground; this isn't to rub further salt in their wounds, just a statement of fact based on well-reported faction fighting within this party. In reality and in the final analysis, Solidarity will have to appeal to the people as only the working class is capable of carrying through with this task. In this respect, if the SWP contingent are happy to go along for the ride; then the more the merrier.

Interesting times lie ahead. Let's hope that Solidarity can last the pace.

by God give me patience Tue Sep 12, 2006 21:09

"just a statement of fact based on well-reported faction fighting within this party."

There have only ever been three faction fights worth mentioning in the SSP:

1) The CWI versus their former comrades in the ISM
2) The SWP versus the CWI
3) Tommy Sheridan versus everyone else in the leadership

The CWI and the SWP are no longer in the SSP, and Sheridan has left with them. So no more faction fights. Hate to ruin your pie-in-the-sky fantasies, good luck following the liar up the garden path

by Same old same old Tue Sep 12, 2006 22:00

Your response to the above poster is complete trite! If you are going to talk about liars lets have the truth then. As a past member of the SSP and a current member of Solidarity I have worked side by side with comrades without regard for whatever platform they may be in. I myself am not in any. My experience of the SSP over the past 20 months has been one of utter disbelief at the stupidity of the SSP EC. They have acted in the most foolish manner, their failed tactic of trying to stop Sheridan taking his case to court was flawed and reckless from the off. They have thrown stones, told lies – oh yes, they the party that stood for truth lied and continues to lie. Why did Alan McCoombs inflict thousands of pounds of debt to our party in the name of principle, i.e. Going to prison to defend the right to keep internal documents, records of meetings and decisions within the party when he knew Grant (and of it wasn’t Grant then please correct me with the name of who it was) had already given the Herald a detailed account of that very meeting? And then have the cheek to come out to members with a half truth and ask for financial support! It is no wonder that non platform members are leaving the SSP to join Solidarity. I wish the SSP well, really I do. I would just rather be part of a forward thinking party and I look forward to working with people who are prepared to concentrate on the real fight.

by John Meehan Wed Sep 13, 2006 01:28

Details at this link :

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2350704,0....html

Commentary Here :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5331992.stm

Headline on SSP website :

Britain out of Iraq ! Scotland out of Britain !
2007—the year to haul down the Butcher’s apron

by John Meehan Wed Sep 13, 2006 23:41

Details at this link :
http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/pages/news%20stories/09_...p.htm

by God give me patience Thu Sep 14, 2006 13:12

"If you are going to talk about liars lets have the truth then. "

I notice you make no attempt to deny that Sheridan has been telling shameless lies non-stop for the last 18 months, because you know it's true and you can't. The rest of your post is hot air and can safely be ignored. Good luck following the liar up the garden path

by John Meehan Thu Sep 14, 2006 23:46

Details at this link :

http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId...earch

by John Meehan Tue Sep 19, 2006 01:07

Story Details Here :

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/70230.html

I hope the two disputing groups can resolve this argument without the intervention of police.

by Tom Joad Tue Sep 19, 2006 12:02

Oh I'd rather be a liar than tout!!!

by bull*hit Alert - committee for ethical socialism Thu Sep 21, 2006 16:39

"Oh I'd rather be a liar than tout!!!"

Say you were an executive member of the of the Workers Revolutionary Party in the UK and a young female comrade made a complaint to the cops about being sexually harrassed and assaulted by Gerry Healy (former leader, exposed as a habitual abuser of impressionable young women in the WRP) and you knew that he was guilty as charged. Would you still rather be a liar than a tout?

Well sorry, the only circumstances that I would lie would be in a situation where a comrade has done something illegal in the interest of the working class. If you can justify what comrade sheridan did you are actually defending all sorts of unethical behaviour more or less saying that a representative of the working class is above the law.

by Curious Thu Sep 21, 2006 17:14

impressionable young woman did TS sexually harrass and assault?

What evidence do you have that TS is a habitual abuser?

To equate the antics of Sheridan with Gerry Healy is really streatching it a bit.

by John Meehan Thu Sep 21, 2006 23:30

The campaign to break up the Anglo-British State is gaining momentum in Scotland.

The four SSP and two Solidarity MSP's, are backing an "Independence First" march in Edinburgh on September 30.

The SSP is building for this march.

Details at this link :

http://www.independence1st.com/supporters.shtml

Are the SWP and CWI also endorsing this initiative?

That seems unlikely.

Maybe they have changed their minds - if so, grand.

If these platforms have not changed their anti-indepencence line, it will be interesting to see how the new Solidarity Party handles the existence of very deep internal dfiferences on a very important question.

by John Meehan Thu Sep 28, 2006 01:41

Good Information at this link :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_%28Scotland%29

Is it People's Front of Judea
Or Judean People's Front
or ???

by John Meehan Fri Sep 29, 2006 00:13

The story is here :

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/70969.html

by John Meehan Mon Oct 02, 2006 01:58

This story refuses to die :

a link is here :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5396828.stm

Will Tommy Sheridan follow-up his fiery words with a new libel case against the News of the World?

The Murdoch newspaper has repeated its allegations - and gone further.

Gordon MacNeilage, Tommy Sheridan's best man at his wedding, is reported to have made a tape recording a conversation with ex SSP convenor about claims of a visit to a Manchester swingers' club, and so on.

It the tape is accurate, it means the Glasgow MSP did not tell the truth during his recent libel case against the News of the World.

If the tape is a fake, the newspaper is in serious trouble.

Let's wait and see.

by Eamon Mon Oct 02, 2006 09:45

I see now that Tommy Sheridan is dismissing the tape as a fraud concocted by his political enemies in the SSP and the NOTW. It really is an incredulous, but all too predictable reply from him. Anyone who has ever heard Sheridan speak will know it was his voice on the tape. As Frances Curran said yesterday, Tommy is in a deep hole and it is time that he stopped digging and told the truth. I wonder what his allies in the SWP/CWI think of all this. Maybe they won't mind. Maybe they think its ok for honest socialists to be publicly accused of scabbery and lies, when all they did was tell the truth and protect the integrity of their own party

And that they did tell the truth surely cannot be denied by anyone now.

by RED JOKER Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:55

Sex, lies and now videotape.... when are the SWP going to finally say enoughs enough with Sheridan and his SQUALIDARITY project.

by AO Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:29

Fact and Fiction - what's happened in the SSP?

by Martin Wicks

The Scottish Socialist Party was viewed by socialists in Britain and around the world as a success story. The election of six MSPs to the Scottish Parliament was a breakthrough, taking advantage of a partial PR electoral system. The SSP united virtually all the socialist currents on the left in Scotland in a single party; a rare event in a country where fractious and warring left of Labour organisations had long been the norm. The conditions for this unity were created through a number of years of common work, which helped to overcome old hostilities. But today, that unity lies in tatters. The SSP has been split. Tommy Sheridan launched his new movement on September 3rd: Solidarity ­ the Scottish Socialist Movement. This brings to an end what has been described as ?the most successful socialist unity project in Europe?.

The split resulted from Sheridan?s court case against the ?News of the World?. Whilst it was a ?sex scandal? case centred on reports in this disreputable rag, the SSP leadership was effectively ?on trial?. Eleven leading figures were subpoenaed to give evidence on the discussion which had taken place in the Party. Leading figures in the SSP gave contradictory versions of events. When Tommy Sheridan sacked his lawyers and took charge of his case he questioned these people and accused them of fabricating evidence against him. They insisted that they were telling the truth, which centred on whether or not he admitted, in a meeting of the SSP?s Executive Committee in 2004, attending the infamous ?swingers? club? in Manchester.

Logically, if Sheridan was telling the truth, then the 11 leaders of the SSP were prepared to lie in court, inventing evidence to ?fit him up?. If they were telling the truth, then Sheridan?s case was an incredibly reckless and cynical action which threatened to destroy the party he had played such a large part in building, in order to defend his ?reputation?.

When you have two sides to an argument, telling different versions of events, and you weren?t at the meeting in question how can you possibly know who is telling the truth? This was the dilemma of socialists outside of Scotland, witnessing the crisis played out in court. How can you chart a course through these murky waters? All you can do is to examine the facts as you find them.

Read in full at link below

by mij Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:36

Squalidarity? more like Squabledarity !

by Tom Joad Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:58

Eamon,

when they stop pandering to bourgeouis morality, maybe we'll consider calling them socialists. As for honesty, if honesty means giving evidence for a capitalist rag against a socialist, who despite his shortcomings and weaknesses, has a long record of fighting for workers rights then you can have your honesty... I hope it tastes as good as the 40 pieces of silver yous swallowed.

by Share A Tan Mon Oct 02, 2006 12:56

Spoken like a true Stalinist. Tommy's right and all the rest can kiss his arse. (Even if he might enjoy it)

by AO Mon Oct 02, 2006 16:29

I presume paying for sex is revolutionary morality?

by socialist Mon Oct 02, 2006 16:37

The story in the NOW proves that Tommy Sheridan was right when he said that leading members of the SSP were involved in a campaign to remove him from the SSP leadership. This tape whether it is genuine or not shows that leading SSP members are colaborating with the NOW. What TS did in his private life is not relevant, what leading members of the SSP did by giving evidence and assisting the NOW is important, and now it seems they are continuing to help the NOW in anyway they can.

by Share A Tan Mon Oct 02, 2006 17:14

No, what the comrades are doing is proving that the man who goes around calling people scab is a liar. But your support for the lying, delusional hypocrite is telling about the depths that some of his new party members and their London controlled 'Internationals' will stoop.

by Lefty Mon Oct 02, 2006 17:55

Assuming this tape is genuine -

what were the motives for secretly recording it?

was it designed to shaft Sheridan?

were the leadership of the SSP aware of the existance of this tape?

How can any socialist possibly condone the secret recording of a conversation of a private conversation and then hand the tape over to the NOTW?

Socialist would rightly condemn any such breach of civil liberties by the state - why should the rules be any different for socialists?

by Share A Tan Mon Oct 02, 2006 18:07

So Lefty and Socialist are crying foul now. Where were they when Katrine Trolle was being lied about by Tommy. Did he or they care about her civil liberties? Who knows why George has done this. He was Tommy's best man. Probably just another person who's been shat upon by Tommy and wanted his pound of flesh. Tommy certainly likes his pound of flesh.

by Eamon Mon Oct 02, 2006 18:36

I would argue that the beginning of perjury proceedings by the Prosecutor Fiscal represents a step closer to the prison cell for Tommy Sheridan.

Doubtless his new found friends in the SWP and CWI will have us all believe that it is a political witchhunt against a great socialist leader etc etc.

I see it more as the inevitable consequence of telling the most outrageous and incredulous porkies in court.

The best thing Sheridan could do now is to own up to his lies, apologise to the socialists he slandered, and to the SSP membership for splitting the party on false grounds, and then hope for leniency in the courts. If he does that, he might just avoid the 5 year sentence that could become a grim reality for him.

by mavis b good Mon Oct 02, 2006 20:38

I have to disagree Eamon. Firstly that Tommy Sheridan should apologies to the socialists he slandered, maybe they're not liars but they're grasses one and all. And that he should apologies to the SSP membership for splitting the party. I think that aside from the private life of Tommy Sheridan, what has become clear not only to the SSP membership and ex membership is that there was the dirtiest of goings on within the party, as has been said previously, a comrade secretly recording a conversation in their home a few weeks after the EC meeting, and then 2 years later handing it to the news of the world? SSP running to the polis after the court case with complaints and more evidence? Are you seriously telling me these people acted with any socialist principle? Who could trust people who act in this manner? Would you? And please don’t hit out with “Tommy lied”, maybe that’s a given and we can all make our minds up about what we think of that but tell me where do the SSP EC and cohorts draw the line? I think they’ve shown themselves to be a small sorry group of ex socialists who were prepared to work with right wing scum to validate their own actions and failings. If they believe this will draw them support I think they’re mistaken. I think the video tape being handed to the news of the world was the last nail in the coffin for SSP. Solidarity will continue and grow because where the SSP focus all their energies on helping to bring down Tommy Sheridan, Solidarity is more than one man and most of the members just want to get on with fighting for socialism.

by agnes - peoples will Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:20

Lucky TS doesn't reside in Belfast - There is a history of 'dealing' with splitters and other scum that betray their politics. TS is just another Hatton. The lession for revolutionaries is - Build the organisation not the personality. SWP will pay for their shortsightedness so will the socialist party when they realise that they are in a grouping now that has a self appointed leadership that have been given a mandate to do as they wish. The membership are there to do what they are told.

by Curious Tue Oct 03, 2006 10:49

Have the SWP or the CWI had anything to say about the workers that Tommy has sacked in the parliament without notice or redundancy. Or is the Great Leader exempt from such consideration?

by cccp Tue Oct 03, 2006 13:49

No agnes you got that one the wrong way around in Belfast the people who are dealt with are the touts i.e., the leadership of the SSP who helped NOW and have gone to the cops! Derek Hatton never betrayed anyone he just gave up politics.

by Eamon Tue Oct 03, 2006 15:44

you call SSp activists 'grasses' but there was only one SSP member who entered that courtroom in Edinburgh voluntarily--and that was Sheridan. He took the NOTW to court, not the other way around. Those SSP members who testified had no choice but to do so--refusal would have seen them cop a contempt charge and certain conviction. And for what? To help Tommy Sheridan present himself to the world as a family man and someone who wouldn't ever cheat on his wife? I think not.

Having gone to court, the only course of action open to SSP members was to be honest. Had they lied and backed up Sheridan's version of events, then this would have been tantamount to saying publicly that, yes, they had been part of a conspiracy to undermine and bring down Sheridan, and that. yes, Sheridan did deny going to swingers clubs at the 9 Nov 2004 EC meeting.

In short, they would have been saying that they were indeed involved in a conspiracy against Sheridan for no good reason and that they had lied to the rest of the SSP membership in stating that he had admitted to those things.

I don't know any political activist who would admit in court to being involved in a contemptible political conspiracy, when they clearly hadn't been involved in anything of the sort, in order to allow someone else to prevent the truth about his sex life from coming out.

Do you?

by mavis b good Tue Oct 03, 2006 19:56

Eamon, We’re all fully aware that the SSP11 had to go to court, and aye that was down to Tommy taking on the news of the world. But can you deny that not many of them looked anything other than gleeful to be there giving testimony that in all probability would have seen Tommy Sheridan bankrupt and the scum paper victorious?

Also Eamon you’ve not answered my question. Who can trust these grasses? – what else do you call individuals who run to the polis? How many more video tapes are there out there? Maybe they have some of private meetings with TU reps that could end up in bosses’ hands if reps fall out of favour? I’ve not seen any condemnation by the SSP EC of the use of secret recording let alone of handing, sorry SELLING it to right wing scum. So we can only draw from that that the SSP EC think it’s A OK. Colin Fox says they were unaware of it’s existence yet on another forum a relative of one of the SSP MSPs prior to the papers publication says that you can trust her – the tapes is genuine. I think this suggests that the EC new about it and was happy for it to be sold to the news of the world. That makes them a lot of things but socialists fighting for the working classes is not one of them.

by John Meehan Wed Oct 04, 2006 00:07

Story at this link :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/54...0.stm

by The red joker Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:30

Judging by the meagre visible ( or is that invisible) support of a few young female students for Tam at his latest Squalidarity press conference of denial ( Sheridan V Everyone Else) it seems it his fan club is melting away like snow off a dyke. Solidarity ? more like SOLITARY !

by Eamon Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:59

You talk about grasses and 'individuals' who run to the polis, but in fact only 1 SSP member did this--Barbara Scott. The reason for this was that she was the minutes secretary at the 9 Nov 2004 meeting, and as such will now be one of the main targets under investigation as part of the perjury proceedings. If you were to put yourself in Scott's shoes, you'd understand why she did that. Scott recorded accurately what was said at that meeting (the minutes were passed as accurate unanimously at the next EC meeting) but was accused of lying by Sheridan and his dishonest allies in Court. With Sheridan winning his case, it is undoubtedly the case that Scott felt that she too might be a victim of a miscarriage of justice and acted in the way she did. With perjury carrying a possible sentence of 5-10 years, I won't condemn what she did, even if I wouldn't have done it myself. On the contrary, I blame Sheridan and his allies--it was their testimony in court that has opened up the possibility of honest people like her going down for perjury.

Re the tape. The important thing is that it suggests that Sheridan is a liar and a hypocrite of the first rank. If you had been slandered in court and castigated as a scab, of course you'd be delighted at the existence of such a tape. My guess is that the MSP that you refer to did know about the tape before Sunday, but precisely when that person found out is imposssible to know. I would doubt very much if the SSP leadership authorised McNeilage's actions. it is my guess that he did it off his own back, and told them about it much later. it is all completely irrelevant in any case. When you act in the way that Sheridan has, you can have no qualms about stuff like this happening to you.

Re the question of selling the tape. it has been suggested by Sheridan that McNeilage received money from the NOTW for this. This is a bit rich coming from him considering that he copped for 30 grand from the Daily Record (Remember the muck the Record wrote about Kurdish Asylum seeker, Firsat Dag, after he was murdered in 2001? Real man of principle is our Tommy.) I don't know if it is true that McNeilage received money or how much, as I couldn't and wouldn't now or ever again believe a word that comes out of Sheridan's mouth. What i would say, however, is that if McNeilage did get money, then it should go to the SSP to help them pay off some of the debt that Sheridan's court case has cost them.

by sper Wed Oct 04, 2006 13:23

If you want to read a good reply to the arguments being put forward here by Eamon and others then go to www.socialistworld.net (CWI website) and read the article "News of the World offensive against Tommy Sheridan" and you will find out a lot more about the antics of the SSP - Stop Sheridan Party!

by Tom Joad Wed Oct 04, 2006 19:28

What debts would the SSP have accrued from the case? surely it was tommy and NOTW who were liable?

"What i would say, however, is that if McNeilage did get money, then it should go to the SSP to help them pay off some of the debt that Sheridan's court case has cost them."

Anyway, I'm sure rupert murdoch would be delighted to make a contribution to help clear any debts. Afterall, one good turn deserves another

by mavis b good Wed Oct 04, 2006 21:20

Eamom, How can you say that an SSP member making a secret video of a comrade and the tape then being sold to the right wing Murdoch empire is irrelevant? Are you, like the SSP EC by their silence over this, suggesting that secret filming of comrades and selling it on to your enemy is acceptable?

And you only mention Scott running to the polis with evidence, you say nothing about Grant giving the Glasgow Herald a sworn affidavit right after the EC meeting or did that not happen? You’re arguments seem to be based around your assumption that Tommy Sheridan lied and then called his ex comrades scabs, liars etc. Fine, but the tape and the sworn affidavit were done following the EC meeting in November 04. That’s was two years before the court case. So when Tommy Sheridan claimed there was a cabal within the SSP out to get him it seems that he was right. Funny how the SSP are completely sidestepping the actions of these members?

I like many am completely dismayed by what has happened within the Scottish socialist movement as a result of all of this but I must admit to being glad to now know the kind of dirty underhand tactics condoned by the SSP EC. The only person who can now trust them is Murdoch and his allies, certainly not any socialists in Scotland and the test of that will be next year when there are no SSP MSP’s and no income and they have to go out and get jobs, join unions and work with real socialists instead of filling their days fighting one man. They have lost the respect and support of trade unionists the length and breadth of this country. As for the dirty money got from the sale of the tape I believe the SSP have refused to accept it – maybe on a point of principle? They should accept the money as they have demonstrated that principles don’t matter them. And the party’s debts incurred through this? I take it you mean McCoombs fine for not handing over the minutes? He should pay that out of his own wages as he already knew Grant had put the contents of the meeting into the hands of the press.

Eamon, you seem preoccupied with what Tommy Sheridan did, but for activists, whether they are Solidarity or trade unionists the question is who is the SSP representing right now? Is it the working class or is it the Murdoch Empire? Only the SSP can answer that but they seem to be avoiding the question

by John Meehan Wed Oct 04, 2006 21:45

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2006/10/04/newsstory...0.asp

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/71311.html

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_headline=ten-cops-....html

Perhaps Tommy will start telling the truth -

If he doesn't, the saga wil drag on without any end in sight.

by the latest Thu Oct 05, 2006 12:16

The following is an article from the CWI (Scotland) on the tape controversy:

Quotes:

News of the World offensive against Tommy Sheridan

"THE NEWS of the World (NoW), who suffered a sensational defeat at the hands of Tommy Sheridan in his defamation case against them in August, has unleashed a massive new offensive against him".........

"This continued campaign by the NoW, with the backing and the resources of the Murdoch media empire, is an attack on Tommy Sheridan for having the temerity to defeat the biggest media organisation internationally..............

"It is against this background that the actions of the SSP leadership, who are now acting in concert with the NoW and News International, have to be condemned. Rather than accept Tommy Sheridan’s victory in August they used it as a green light to go on the offensive against him.........

"The pages of The Sun and the NoW have become more akin to the in-house journals of the SSP leadership since Tommy Sheridan’s victory. With page after page devoted to prominent SSP members who have demanded police enquiries, perjury investigations, and now the resignations of Tommy Sheridan and fellow Solidarity MSP Rosemary Byrne from the Scottish parliament............

Read entire article at following link:

by pat c Thu Oct 05, 2006 12:37

MI5 and the SB have done such deeds before. Remember they infiltrated the NUM at a high level. Ken Livingstone believes MI5 were responsible for breaking up the WRP. Dont laugh, mad as the WRP were they did a lot of work on Ireland and Palestine. After the WRP break up, property was sold for a song and changed hands again a few days afterwards for multiples of the original price.

That doesn't mean that MI5 are involved in this case. But it shouldn't be lightly ruled out. Full story at the link.

pat c

************************************************************************
Sheridan claims to be 'victim of MI5 plot'
LOUISE GRAY

* Latest instalment in the Tommy Sheridan v Everyone Else legal saga
* Socialist politician claims video tape of him 'swinging' is a 'stitch-up'
* MI5 and Rupert Murdoch head the list of suspects responsible

Key quote "The state has a fine history of trying to destabilise and undermine socalist movements or trade union struggles. When the history of this whole episode is written about, I think you'll find that MI5 was involved." - Tommy Sheridan

AS CONSPIRACY theories go, it has to be one of the more bizarre: MI5 and Rupert Murdoch had conspired to concoct a videotape to overthrow his crusade for an independent socialist Scotland.

In a political rally that quickly turned into a personal attack on one of the most powerful media moguls of modern times, Tommy Sheridan claimed that a video allegedly showing him admitting to visiting a swingers club was "utterly untrue".

by Glesgae Lad Fri Oct 06, 2006 10:56

....with an introduction from the SSP Trade Union organiser Richie Venton.

Dear comrade,

I enclose below the statement we have issued through the Scottish Socialist Voice, in response to the new media eruption around the video tape given to News of the World, in case you have not already seen it.

I had argued from Sunday morning onwards for such a statement, which was delayed a couple of days becuase of other pressures and the need to consult the whole EC. I would have preferred a more rapid response, but at least it's done now - and to be fair Colin appeared on Monday's Newsnight and made fundamentally the same main points.

All this is the last thing we needed or wanted. We had begun to put the crisis of Tommy's court case behind us, with a great SSP public rally with 400 at it on Saturday 2nd September, and renewed success on the streets, as well as at recent anti-Trident, anti-war and pro-independence demos. We have been re-focussing members' attention on trade union struggles - for example I am literally just back from a big demo of Falkirk council workers against wage and overtime-rate cuts by the SNP council, and we are in the thick of this issue and civil service workers' struggles across Scotland right now.

As I hope this statement makes plain, I and the rest of the SSP leadership knew nothing about it and played no part in the recording of the video, or in its delivery to News of the World, and we have openly stated that we have not been offered a penny (nor would we accept a single penny) arising from it. This is in flat contradiction to a lie circulated by at least one SWP member in writing (he is the Solidarity press officer in the Lothians) who claimed that the SSP (as a party) handed over the tape to News of the World and that we got £20,000 for it!

By the way, we have heard that the timing of the NoTW's publication was delayed by several weeks whilst they checked legal issues and checked the authenticity of the video, and that (according to his own written and published statement) George offered it to them in the immediate aftermath of Tommy winning his court case and branding SSP comrades as 'scabs' and 'liars'. That is merely to inform you of something not carried in the media as far as I know; it is not to condone secret tapings, which is neither the tradition or method of the SSP, and which will not become so either.

We want to move on, looking outwards and fight alongside the working class with our socialist policies.

I look forward to hearing what you think.

Yours in struggle, solidarity and socialism.

Richie Venton

STATEMENT FROM COLIN FOX ON BEHALF OF SSP

After accusing the SSP executive of fabricating minutes and orchestrating "the mother of all frame-ups", Tommy Sheridan is now accusing the party of colluding with News of the World and MI5 to produce a fake video confession. This is an absurd and fantastical allegation that will be treated with astonishment by most people in Scotland. In fact, the tape is clearly authentic and blows apart Tommy's preposterous allegations against his old party comrades.

The tape establishes, from Tommy's own mouth, that our 11 comrades, who were forced under threat of imprisonment to give evidence to the Court of Session, told the truth. Contrary to the latest chapter in Tommy Sheridan's science fiction novel, the SSP had no involvement in the production of this tape. George McNeilage is an SSP member, but holds no position within the party. He taped this conversation as a private individual and as a former close personal friend of Tommy Sheridan.

The SSP does not advocate or practise the secret taping of conversations. The SSP had no knowledge of or role in the production of this tape. We have sought to build a political movement based on mutual trust - though we also recognise, with the benefit of hindsight, that Tommy Sheridan has been prepared to trample all trust into the dirt for his own personal ends.

Nor is it true, as has been falsely claimed by supporters of Tommy Sheridan, that the SSP handed this tape over to News of the World. The SSP EC has never had possession of this tape; nor did the SSP have any involvement in passing the tape to the newspaper. Neither the SSP nor any of its office-bearers have received or will receive a single penny from News of the World or from any other media company - unlike Tommy Sheridan, who was recently paid £30,000 by the New Labour-supporting media corporation, Trinity Mirror, for denouncing his then comrades as "scabs", "liars", "rats" and "perjurers".

We believe that events are now rapidly approaching a conclusion that will have seriously damaging consequences for Tommy Sheridan and his breakaway political organisation, Solidarity, founded on the basis of a lie and fraud. History will judge Tommy Sheridan's libel action as one of the biggest political misjudgements of modern times and will vindicate the judgement of the 2004 SSP EC, who advised a different course of action.

With a perjury investigation now underway, we are confident that the good name of the SSP will be restored 100 per cent. We can now start to draw a line under the past and move forward, establishing new branches, recruiting new members and winning support by engaging in the many campaigns for social and economic justice emerging across
Scotland.

We have in recent weeks renewed our commitment to the anti-war movement and to the rapidly developing struggle for Scottish independence. We will continue our campaign against nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Our party was built and will grow further around the principle of showing practical solidarity to workers and communities in struggle. We believe that if the SSP continues to look outward and engage with working people in their day-to-day struggles we can quickly recover any ground we have lost as result of the calamitous actions of Tommy Sheridan.

by the latest Fri Oct 06, 2006 14:09

Interesting how Fox does not condemn McNeilage for secretly taping Tommy Sheridan's conversation (assuming the tape is genuine) and selling the tape to the news of the world (ie crossing class lines). The SSP has said no disciplinary action is to be taken against McNeilage. The SSP have been trying to claim the high moral ground in this whole sorry mess. However it would be easier to belive they had principles if they expelled McNeilage for his actions.

by Onlooker Fri Oct 06, 2006 22:32

A quick read of the NotW's transcript of the tape (they've not posted the
entire audio as far as I could find) makes it astonishing that a socialist
would repeat this affirmation, which comes from Murdoch's hacks, and has
been picked up by pretty much the rest of the bourgeois press.

If Newman was unwilling or unable to at least read what the Murdoch press
was willing to reveal about the tape and listen to the excerpts provided, he
does a tremendous disservice by writing this sort of piece based on the
assertions of the pig press.

To fill people in, this is a tape made by SSP member George McNeilage of a
conversation he had with Tommy Sheridan almost two years ago, shortly after
the Scottish Socialist Party's NEC demanded and obtained Sheridan's
resignation as convener. Although a video tape, press reports indicate (but
not in Murdoch's outlets that I could find) that Sheridan's image is not on
the tape. This is, however, consistent with the News of the World account of
how McNeilage says the tape was made, which was by hiding the a camcorder
under tiles McNeilage was using to upgrade his house. Presumably the images
on the tape are thus a still shot of very dark tiles with light leaking in
around the edges.

Despite the claims of Murdoch's News of the World, which unfortunately have
been echoed by Andy Newman and a number of prominent members of the SSP and
other leftists, SHERIDAN DOES NOT ADMIT THE TRUTH OF THE NEWS OF THE WORLD
CHARGES. On the contrary, he point-by-point refutes them.

In this, the transcript is largely consistent with what Sheridan said in
court (and, as we shall see, what News of the World was forced to admit).

In particular, note should be taken of this exchange about the first News of
the World article against Sheridan, based on the account of Anvar Khan about
her affair with an unnamed Member of the Scottish Parliament (who everyone
assumed was meant to be seen as Sheridan).

"McNEILAGE: Tam, I've read the article, I know who it is. She's wrote it
coded but I know it's **** and I know it's f*****g Andy.

"SHERIDAN: What's important, George, is the facts which she refers to.

"McNEILAGE: What, the booze and the f*****g?

"SHERIDAN: Well, number one, 2001. Right? Number two, she meets the guy the
first time at it (Cupids) in 2001. Number three, she meets him in an
Edinburgh bar in 2001.

"Number four, she then has drunken sex with him after she's been taken for a
meal by him later in 2001.

"Number five, the guy tries to hide he's married.

"Number six, we then drive from London to Manchester to go to a sex club,
right?

"McNEILAGE: Which I found f*****g strange.

"SHERIDAN: All of that is nonsense. You know the real story. The News of the
World have then ran the story 'Married MSP affair'."

The woman is a News of the World staffer and sex columnist, whom Sheridan
freely admits that he had an affair with, but many years earlier. Something
he reiterates in this transcript:

"SHERIDAN: There's been a few sessions. In 1992, me and ***** were sh*****g
her. 1992, which is in certain respects my saving grace because if there's
any story about what she knows about my personal habits or if she knows
about I've got a hairy back or a hairy a***, of course she does because she
f*****g sh****d me and I've admitted that. That's out in the open. That's a
matter of public record.

"McNEILAGE: I know that."

It should be added that, on the record, under oath, before the judge and the
jury, Anvar Khan admitted to fabricating all sorts of details and incidents
about her supposed affair with Sheridan that were in the NotW account: the
drunkenness, S&M, fetishes and so on.

This is a summarized version of part of her testimony posted by a Sheridan
supporter who provided detailed --and as far as I could judge from a
distance by comparing to other accounts, accurate-- reporting during
Sheridan's successful lawsuit against NotW for libel:

"Mr Henderson [one of Sheridan's lawyers, who Sheridan dismissed in
mid-trial]: You say in this piece that the ?married MSP? got ?very drunk?.
Have you ever seen Mr Sheridan drunk?

"Anvar Khan: No.

"Mr H: Did you have spanking sessions with him?

"AK: No.

"Mr H: Did you wear red gloves?

"AK No.

"Mr H: Did any of these things happen?

"AK: No, it?s a puff for a book. [Her book on relationships called Pretty
Wild] I didn?t write that. There are parts that are related to reality and
parts that are not. The only thing that?s true is what I?m saying today.

"Mr H: Are you saying all that?s in the News of the World is not true?

"AK: No. But the SSP thought I was writing about him."

It also came out during the trial that Khan was being put under pressure by
Murdoch management to spice up her story against Sheridan as her contract
was up for renewal.

As I detailed in an earlier post, other Murdoch hacks confirmed that they
fabricated stuff, and described how they made no effort to try to obtain any
corroboration for the stories that they printed about Sheridan. Nor were
they able to offer any at the trial -- hotel or credit card record for
alleged trysts, etc.

On Fiona McGuire, who claimed to have has an affair with Sheridan that
initially was described as starting with an intimate, romantic champagne and
strawberries seduction, and then later the story was changed to it having
started with a multi-person drunken orgy, and was the second main source of
NotW stories, this is part of what the tape records Sheridan as saying to
McNeilage, describing discussions among leading people in the SSP a few days
before the articles based on McGuire's account appeared:

"What we now realise, of course, is Duncan's been taken for a f*****g
kipper. The lassie is getting paid by the News of the World. The lassie has
worked with the News of the World. The lassie s****** Duncan.

"McNEILAGE: Has she snared you? Have you f*****g...

"SHERIDAN: Did I? George I've never met her. I've never f*****g met the
lassie. Right? Never met the lassie."

Evidence at the trial indicated McGuire received 20,000 British pounds,
almost $38,000 U.S. dollars, for her account, and that at the time of the
trial she was staying at a Hotel and taking flying lessons with News of the
World footing the bill.

The one thing in the transcript that supposedly contradicts what Sheridan
has said is this, at the very beginning of the transcript:

"TOMMY SHERIDAN: Right, obviously you've got a situation where, ehm, I was
upset with Keith a couple of years ago because he told Alan.

"GEORGE McNEILAGE: About the swingers?

"SHERIDAN: About me going down to Manchester in 2002. And Alan pulled me up
about it. And I said to him: 'Look, stupid, shouldnae have done it. Done it
once before in '96 and went back in 2002.

"And cheap thrill but it's been done and that's it. At the time it was a
great idea but I'm confident nothing will come back out of it."

Interestingly, this is one of the few parts of the tape that NotW makes
available in audio, in the form of an insert in an audio report by an
unidentified person that is presented on the main web page of NotW as if it
were the Sheridan tape itself.

I say interestingly because the audio is somewhat different from what the
transcript of the whole tape says. The transcript of the audio report casts
the exchange this way:

"SHERIDAN: Right, obviously you?ve got a situation where, ehm, I was upset
with Keith a couple of years ago because he went and told Alan. A year and a
half ago, he went and told Alan...

"McNEILAGE: About the swingers (inaudible).

"SHERIDAN: About me going down to Manchester in 2002.

"McNEILAGE: Right"

As some people know, I'm a TV producer. One of the things I've done the most
is dubbing, i.e., fitting a different-language audio track onto an already
done product in English, which involves extensive audio editing. The audio
snippets from the Sheridan tape that NotW offers are extremely poor quality,
overlaid with so much noise as to be almost unintelligible throughout and
completely unintelligible in places.

Although NotW offers only a "streaming" version of the file, it is child's
play to save a copy of the file on your own computer using a stream ripper.

This I did, and got a 160kbps MP3 stereo file with identical content in both
channels.

With the file on my hard disk I was able to play parts of it repeatedly,
using different equalizer settings for filtering, and even slowing down the
playback (without a changing of frequency like you get in the analog
domain). I've played this part of the file, which is supposedly the heart of
Sheridan's confession, countless times in countless ways, and come to the
following conclusions.

1. "About the swingers" is not on the audio track. Nothing that even sounds
remotely like that appears at that point in the tape (nor anywhere else in
that snippet). I've even taken it into a professional video production
control room and listened to it several times there on studio monitors with
a friend who runs it. Neither of us could hear it. What is on the audio
track there is a garble that sounds nothing like what the transcript says.

2. The section of the track that starts "I was upset with Keith" sounds to
me like it has been edited. My suspicion is that the first reference to
Allan may have been dropped in, the intonation and timing sound slightly
off.

3. I am even more suspicious about the next few words, "A year and a half
ago," etc. It sticks out, it sounds very odd, inserted.

4. The garble that follows, presented in the NotW transcript as McNeilage
saying "About the swingers" sounds to me like the result of audio being
added, in part because there is no break or change in the way Sheridan is
speaking, he seems not to have heard any interruption, but it is very loud
on the tape.

5. I believe the year Sheridan mentions for the trip to Manchester might be
2003, not 2002, but whether this has any significance, I don't know.

Sheridan has admitted leading a promiscuous life style in the 1990's before
he married his current wife (I'm not sure if he was ever married before),
including a visit to a swingers club. His statements about how it was
stupid, he should not have done it, etc., could well be referring to that,
or it could also be referring to the alleged trip to the Cupid Club in
Manchester in 2002. Either way, it does not constitute an admission by
Sheridan as to the truth of the News of the World articles.

The integrity of what is presented as the other key confession snippet,
where he is described having confessed to the NEC is impossible to even
hazard guesses and hunches about because NotW chose to repeatedly bleep the
audio:

"They want me to come to that meeting that night to explain myself and this
is where I make the big mistake. A f ***** g huge mistake Humungous f *****
g mistake. I go to the meeting. I go in. It?s a room. The front room of the
centre. There?s 19 people round a f ***** g circle, sitting on desks,
sitting on chairs. The atmosphere you could have cut it with a f ***** g
knife, man. Cut it with a knife. Duncan f ***** g shaking, shaking. F *****
g (inaudible) I then make the biggest mistake of my life by confessing
something in front of 19 f ***** g, what am I doing confessing in front of
these c **** ?"

However, even standing as is, it is entirely unclear what was the
*substance* of the "confession." It could well have been about his earlier
affair with Khan in the 90's, or the generally promiscuous life style he
admits to having engaged in for many years, or the alleged trip to Cupid's
in 2002, or something else altogether that's been suppressed by Murdoch's
minions.

In typical Murdoch fashion, both in the supposedly complete transcript of
the 40-minute tape as in the transcript of the 6 minute anonymous audio
report that includes what we actually hear, NotW interjects the
interpretation they want to impose on the tape, for example, "Next, he
confirms his intention to lie, saying he'll fight on unless given
"incontrovertible evidence."

Actually, the context of the entire conversation, where Sheridan
point-by-point refutes the Khan article against him, excludes that
interpretation. Sheridan does not present his refutation of Khan's article
as a lie, he says this stuff she asserts DID NOT HAPPEN.

This is what follows:

"SHERIDAN: George, I've put my hand up and said 'mistake', I've put my hand
up and said "recklessness", I've put my hand up and said, 'you know, in the
balance of things, I've made a mistake', right?

"I think what's happened to me since, eh, is a wee bit over the top because
I feel as though I'm f*****g Julius Caesar, I feel as though I'm getting
used as a teabag the now.

"I ask, eh, I ask Alan and Keith to give me the opportunity to see it down
and I say to them: 'I guarantee you if I am presented with incontrovertible
evidence ? video tapes, CCTV, something of that character ? I'll put my hand
up and say ?I'm sorry'...and I'll walk away.

"'But I'm no' prepared to give in to f*****g bullying because that's what
the News of the World, in my opinion, is doing right now ? f*****g bullying.
They have been told it's me but they can't prove it.'"

McNeilage has already been told, of course, why "they can't prove it" --
because it isn't true. What Sheridan is saying here is that although he
hasn't been a saint, these articles that depict him as some sort of sex
fiend and degenerate are a pack of lies.

* * *

Taken as a whole, here is what we know or is quite likely to be the case.

The original NotW article about the "married MSP" was a work of fiction, at
the very least overwhelmingly. If there is any truth in there at all, it is
imprisoned by walls of lies. No one, not even the source of the piece, the
writer, or the editor (once they were put under oath) claimed this was a
true account of things that actually happened. On the contrary. They
disavowed it.

It is unclear whether there was a trip to the Cupid club in Manchester in
2002, but even if there was, apart from the discrepancy in the year (Khan
says 2001) the account of what actually happened printed by the NotW is
false. That according to News of the World source and staffer Khan: contrary
to what she claimed through the article, Sheridan was never drunk, he didn't
engage in S&M, clothing fetishes and so on and if I remember right at least
one account of that alleged trip says the person involved with Khan was not
Sheridan but someone else who was along, I think there were two others,
again, if memory serves (I no longer have the articles on which I based my
earlier piece due to a computer crash, and all would have "scrolled off"
Google News, which indexes material only for a month).

To claim that the NotW stories were "substantially true" based on even a
completely anti-Sheridan interpretation of what's on the tape, and accepting
the tape as completely genuine, i.e., taking it for proven that this was an
admission he had gone to Cupid's club in 2002, is possible only under the
standards of journalistic accuracy practiced by Murdoch gutter rags like
News of the World.

The second NotW article, about the affair with Fiona McGuire, appears to
have been completely fictional. We have Sheridan's "confession" tape where
he once again denies it, her own contradictory accounts, and the failure to
provide any documentary evidence or witnesses tending to confirm any aspect
of what she said.

Sheridan's account --assuming this tape to be fully or mostly accurate--
helps understand the minutes of the NEC meeting. In essence, he supposedly
says on this tape, look, it is true I went to this club in 2002 but none of
what NotW claims happened during the visit is true, nor did the other
assignations they describe happen. I'm going to sue them for saying THOSE
things, which they can't have ANY evidence of because it is all fabricated.

There are other accounts by SSP members of conversations with Sheridan
roughly along similar lines.

The NEC minutes of the anti-Sheridan grouping conflate two things, Sheridan
admitting having gone to the Cupid Club (either in 2002 or in the 90's) and
Sheridan admitting the NotW account was true.

What the drafters of the minutes could not have known is that, under oath,
the sources, writers and editors of News of the World would be forced to
confess that the stories they printed were false, fabricated in order to
sell books and newspapers.

Because it is one thing to say Sheridan slept with this or that person, or
went to this or that club, and quite another to paint this sort of portrait
of a degenerate routinely engaged in drunken debauchery. (BTW, the emphasis
on his supposed drunkenness is because Sheridan is a notorious teetotal).

Sheridan on this tape does not conflate the two things. (I am assuming it is
largely accurate, and I think it makes sense to assume that the things that
do not favor NotW probably have not been altered, except perhaps for
suppressing the most damaging bits where that could be safely done.) This
gives us at least the general thrust of his presentation to the NEC, and
forces us to conclude that the majority of the members of that committee
either did not or chose not to understand his point.

I do not necessarily assume that either all of the people on Sheridan's side
or all of those opposed to him who testified about that NEC meeting
committed perjury, i.e., consciously lied. I've seen enough of factional and
other situations to know that especially under highly charged circumstances,
people tend to hear what they expect to and want to hear, what fits into the
framework of how they are thinking about something.

Of great interest to me was Sheridan's description of the NEC meeting, and
other meetings and conversations that preceded it. Basically, a majority of
the NEC members had already whipped themselves up into a frenzy over this,
convicted Sheridan in their own minds, and took whatever recognition of past
indiscretions Sheridan laid before them at the meeting as an admission on
his part that the first NotW article was true. Again, they could not or
would not understand that Sheridan was saying that while indeed he had done
some embarrassing and foolish things, the allegations in News of the World
were not them.

The very detailed NEC minutes reflect and incorporate this lack of
understanding. So it presents Sheridan as saying essentially that he
intended to gamble on Murdoch's minions not being able to prove their story
even though it was true.

What the anti-Sheridan faction of the NEC could not have known and could not
have guessed is that News of the World people would be forced to admit under
oath in court that what they printed was a pack of lies, and their defense
would be that even though the particular incidents they described were made
up, the story was "substantially true" because these OTHER incidents they
had not included in their original report showed that Sheridan slept around,
albeit without getting drunk, tying people up, spanking, red gloves,
four-in-a-bed romps and all the rest of it.

No wonder the jury awarded Sheridan the largest libel compensation ever in
the history of Scotland. And lucky for Murdoch he was in Scotland. An
American jury, allowed to impose not just actual but punitive damages, would
likely have tacked on three more zeros to any damage award after such a
confession from the publication.

Because this is like a newspaper claiming a woman murdered her husband, and
when she sues them for libel and shows up at the trial husband alive and
kicking in tow, the defense that is mounted is that it was not libelous
because here are these witnesses who say she readily confessed to the murder
that we now admit didn't happen, and here is this other witness we paid
thousands of pounds to, who claim she really did kill some other husband, or
maybe it was her sister in law who killed someone else.

There is simply no question that Murdoch's agents acted with "actual
malice," a term of art in U.S. libel law that means printing something that
you know to be false or in reckless disregard of whether or not it was true.
It is called "actual malice," I suspect, as an invitation to juries to
financially disembowel the miscreants who perpetrated it.

Motivated by anti-Sheridan factionalism, the NEC majority either whipped
themselves up into believing that Sheridan really did confess that the
articles were true, or, which is perhaps even worse, consciously distorted
the written record of the meeting to depict Sheridan as having admitted the
truth of the NotW article even though he was insisting they were false.

Unfortunately for the NEC majority faction, this locked them into a position
of swearing that Sheridan admitted the truth of articles which, when we got
to the trial, not even the News of the World staffers claimed had much truth
to them.

And now we have a tape which, even if portions were altered and edited, and
other parts cut out, does give us pretty much a contemporaneous account by
Sheridan of his argument in his own defense against the charges, which was
that although he may have done some foolish or reckless things in the past,
this scandalous depiction of him was completely false.

This, far from vindicating the NEC majority, really condemns them because
Sheridan recounts what he said at that meeting, and that is not what the
minutes reflect. And Sheridan's position at the meeting as he describes it,
his stance in this recorded conversation, and his subsequent statements are
largely consistent.

It is hard to tell whether people like Andy Newman, who wrote the blog on
the socialist unity network, is so blinded by factionalism that they were
unable to see the plain meaning of Sheridan's words as conveyed in the
transcript, were so naive as to take the word of Murdoch's gutter rag for
what is on the tape, or so cynical that they read the transcript, understood
its import, but nevertheless decided to claim that the tape has "Tommy
Sheridan admitting that he told the SSP executive on 9th November 2004 that
the allegations against him by NOTW were substantially true."

The real "bombshell" is that the anti-Sheridanites have become so blind,
cynical, or have so completely lost their capacity for critical reading and
thinking.

* * *

That such a tape was made of what, by the tapists' own account, Sheridan
insisted be a private conversation with no one else present suggests
something about the degree of personal anti-Sheridan animus among his party
opponents, including those who had been his close friends. And it tends to
confirm another one of Sheridan's claims, that there was in essence a
conspiracy against him among people in the SSP.

Basically McNeilage, who was one of the three best men at his wedding,
sandbagged and betrayed Sheridan, and is now running guns to the most
despicable of lying bourgeois media outlets to use against a rival in the
socialist movement. Do I believe this person did this all on his own
initiative, independently of the anti-Sheridan faction in the leadership?
Sure, I also believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus.

But even if there was no direct collusion, the leadership whipped people up
into such an anti-Sheridan mindset, that even such gutter tactics as a
formerly close friend enticing him into a private conversation so that he
could be recorded hopefully making damaging admissions was considered ok.

There is a logic to this breakdown in proletarian morality. It is the logic
of Gethsemane.

In the article he wrote for NotW, McNeilage describes his motivation this
way:

"I've no great sympathy for the News of the World. In fact, the first picket
line I attended was outside the paper's gates in 1986 during the print union
dispute.

"If other newspapers print this story, good luck to them. I've released the
tape not to help the NoW, but to clear the good name of the SSP and its
office bearers.

"What's important is that it gets out to as many working class people as
possible."

And he says he didn't offer the tape during the trial because he was sure
Sheridan would lose without it and because he wanted to spare his kids from
being around a scandal like this.

What he does not say, although the News of the World has admitted it, is
that he was paid to give News of the World exclusive access to the tape.
Sheridan at a press conference said the amount involved was 20,000 pounds
(nearly US$38,000), and I've not seen this figure disputed in any press
accounts, although my understanding from reading the reports is that the
NotW admission was to the fact of a payment, not the amount.

Sheridan disputes the circumstances under which the tape was made. He says
he was never at McNeilage's house. He also charges it is, in essence, a
doctored tape.

Where the tape was made is significant, because a different venue would
suggest premeditation and more careful preparation was necessary, and might
implicate others. It may also be true that legally, the venue makes a
difference, and while someone is free to tape himself talking to someone
else in their own home, no such privilege exists elsewhere. Perhaps someone
in Britain can tell us the law there.

* * *

The News of the World is carrying out a carefully staged propaganda campaign
to present the tape in a false light.

The press is reporting:

"A spokesman for the newspaper said: 'We are in possession of an
original recording of Tommy Sheridan, in which he admits our allegations
against him are true.
"'Laboratory analysis by independent experts has proven the tape to
be genuine.'"

And they are insisting it is a simple matter to prove a tape is
genuine.

But that is not true. There are three ways to verify the
authenticity of a tape. One is by looking at the "acoustic signature" of the
voice --the pattern of frequencies produced by a speaker when uttering
specific sounds. This method is not likely to be available, as the snippets
News of the World provided to the public show the tape is of extremely poor
audio quality, overlaid with several types of noise, a whirring or small
motor noise, a water dripping-type-noise, and others.

A second method if for an expert to determine how a given person
pronounces each phoneme. An impersonator is unlikely to succeed in
reproducing exactly how a given person pronounced each and every phoneme,
even if the voice and the accent sounds identical. However, this does not
detect words and phrases really spoken by the person in question, but that
have been rearranged to put into his mouth things he didn't really say.

Finally, in the pre-digital era, and provided you had the original
equipment the tape was recorded with, you could in most cases detect a
recording that was genuinely of the person but that had been edited. No
analog tape to tape transfer produces a perfectly identical copy. A good
audio editor could literally splice the tape, rearranging it so that when
you heard it, you'd be unable to tell the difference. But the razor cuts and
scotch tape on magnetic tape would be a dead giveaway. To get a tape without
physical alterations, you needed to go to a second generation. That adds
tape hiss and distorts the original sounds, and however imperceptible to our
ears such changes might be, with good laboratory equipment and the machine
that recorded the original for reference, a second generation tape could
usually be detected. The one exception might be when there is a constant
noise on the tape that overwhelms "tape hiss" and it proves impossible to
find even a narrow frequency band where that doesn't take place. (I think
the forensic examination is likely to show that is the situation in this
case).

But apart from that, TODAY it is an entirely different matter.
Properly done, digital copies are EXACT replicas. There is absolutely no
difference in content between the master recording and even a 10th or 20th
generation copy. There is no way to tell them apart based on the content,
because both versions contain exactly the same sequence of one and zeroes.

One of the things we haven't been told --at least I've been unable
to find it-- is whether the camcorder used was analog or digital. But either
way, it doesn't matter. Whether the original recording was analog or
digital, it is technically possible to produce an altered recording that
cannot be distinguished from an original if it is done in the digital
domain. And with the right expertise and equipment, a copy altered in
digital form can even be laid back to analog using the same camcorder as
took the original audio and video, or a different machine that now is said
to have been the original one, and it will look to all the world like an
unaltered, first-generation original master tape made in that machine
because, in essence, it is.

The music industry solved the problem of eliminating most tape hiss
from analog recordings, but in this case, I believe the noise on the tape
extends into the highest frequencies and would mask the hiss, if there was
any to begin with.

So on this, as on so many other things, the Murdoch press is lying.

I say this as a cautionary note to supporters of the anti-Sheridan
faction. You may think it assured that Sheridan will be getting his
comeuppance given that the tape portrays him as admitting a visit to
Cupid's, presumably with the NotW journalist. Don't count on it. And listen
carefully to the section of the tape in question, one of the few NotW has
made available, as a juror might listen to it trying to decide whether or
not an alteration was made.

Joaquín

by John Meehan Sun Oct 08, 2006 01:49

The Socialist Resistance Statement on the Sheridan Tape at this link :

http://www.socialistresistance.net/ssp1006.htm

A BBC Report on the opening day of the SSP Conference is here :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5415034.stm

by RD06 Sun Oct 08, 2006 17:29

The only thing of note from the above two articles is the following from the BBC article, (aside from it saying that there are only 200 at SSP conference)

"John Milligan, of the RMT transport union, told the conference parts of the SSP leadership had "significantly failed" the membership and were to blame for Mr Sheridan's departure.

He said the union was deciding whether it should remain affiliated to the SSP."

The Stop Sheridan Party is unravelling even more......

by Observer Mon Oct 09, 2006 17:12

[extract]
The former activist claimed he was angered after Mr Sheridan branded his former Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) colleagues "scabs" for testifying against him in court.
"I was gobsmacked that Tommy had done this," Mr McNeilage said.
Mr McNeilage told the BBC's Politics Show the tape was made on a camcorder in his home in November 2004.
He claimed he decided to record Mr Sheridan after he refused to discuss his resignation with activists "who had helped to create him".

by the latest Mon Oct 09, 2006 18:21

I understand the Workers' Unity tendancy in the SSP tried to put forward an emmergency motion at Conference condemning George McNeilage for selling the "Tommy Tape" to the News of the World, but the SSP leadership ruled the motion out of order.

by John Meehan Mon Oct 09, 2006 23:44

At these links :

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/71656.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6032785.stm

by JIMBO Tue Oct 10, 2006 12:33

What's with all the hypocrisy, slagging off George McNeilage for allegedly taking 20,000 grand from The NOTW.
Didn't the Sheridans receive 30,000 from the Daily Record for an exclusive story, aGREED before the Court case had even ended, which included Tommy posing topless and Gail parading for a fashion shoot!!!
High morals all round - don't you think ?

by The RED JOKER Tue Oct 10, 2006 13:11

Any Socialist who has just woken up from a 2 year coma would be overcome by the incredible tales of sex scandals, swingers clubs, courtroom dramas, media circuses, lies, backstabbings, fallen friendships and socialist splits.

But to anyone in that postion 'the most bizarre and unbelievable fact is ----
TOMMY SHERIDAN IS NOW THE LEADER OF THE SWP IN SCOTLAND ! ! !

by GEO+ Tue Oct 10, 2006 14:08

There is no evidence McNeilage received any payments from the NOTW.
All this public speculation and rumour has come from the mouth of Sheridan himself and a few of his supporters.
Where did they get thier info - from the NOTW ? I don't think so .
So far the only person certain to have taken money from the capitalist media paymasters is Tommy himself.
Lets wait for the facts before passing judgement - on both sides.

by the latest Tue Oct 10, 2006 15:09

Tommy Sheridan has confronted his ex pal George McNeilage over contoversial tape on Scottish television:

Exerpt from the Herald article by its Chief Scottish Political Correspondent :

"Tommy Sheridan last night confronted the former party comrade who
claims he recorded him admitting lying about his private life.
George McNeilage, best man at the former SSP leader's wedding,
insisted that the secret video recording of the confession was
genuine, but Mr Sheridan, now leader of rival party Solidarity,
repeatedly clashed with him on STV's Scotland Today news programme
over the veracity of the tape and the fact that it ended up being sold
to the News of the World".

Read entire story at following linK:

by 100% Free info Wed Oct 11, 2006 14:05

How accurate is voice identification?

"Experts should never say conclusively they have identified a person and this kind of evidence should never solely be used to bring a criminal trial"

Read story at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/5402832.stm

by Eamon Wed Oct 11, 2006 14:47

get your heads out of your a*ses. Please.

Of course its an authentic tape.

Or do you really believe Tommy the fantasist and his nonsense about the CIA and MI5?

Anyone who has listened to the tape knows who is telling the truth.

And (surprise, surprise) guess who has been caught out lying again?

Having just looked at the latest online edition of the Socialist Worker, it is clear that they know that their great hero may not be all that they thought he was.

The tape and Mr Sheridan don't get a mention at all.

There is no 'defend Tommy' headlines now.

Maybe the penny is beginning to drop with those incorrgible sectarians.

One only hopes that the CWI will follow suit.

by JIMBO Wed Oct 11, 2006 15:51

Tommy's and friends rants and ravings are becoming so repetatively mind numbing.
Same old tired transparent excuses, same old poison darts and same old childish lines of attack -

'A BIG BOY DONE IT AND RAN AWAY'
'IT'S A COMBINED PLOT BETWEEN MI5 ,SSP ENEMIES AND MURDOCHS EVIL EMPIRE''
and the classic-
'THE WHOLE OF THE SCOTTISH PEOPLE CAN SEE THROUGH THIS MUCK AND SPOT THE TRUTH'
-nice to see Sheridan and support have conducted thier own mass survey of Scotland in the last few weeks

by GEO+ Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:57

Whether the video tape is authentic or not is irrelevant in this case.
Video evidence will not stand up on it's own in court.
The decision by the Scottish Crown Prosecution to investigate perjury charges against witnesses in the Sheridan libel action was taken before the tape was released. The timing may have been coincidental. What's certain is the legal eagles know there is a very strong case for prosecution on the amount of evidence already available. Things don't look very promising for Mr Sheridan, Ms Byrne and the SWP 3.

by jimbo Thu Oct 12, 2006 13:03

Eamons right again.
Since the Sheridan Video Nasty appeared there's been little comment from the SWP or CWI on this site.
I would be very interested to hear at least one rational opinion.
Come on folks... lets have some debate.

by James N - SSP Thu Oct 12, 2006 15:22

Yes they submitted an emergency motion. No the 'SSP leadership' didn't rule it out of order. It was ruled out of order by the Conference Arrangements Committee, composed of rank-and-file members. WU then appealed this decision, it was put to the conference whether to hear the case, and the conference voted 'no' by a huge majority.

by the latest Thu Oct 12, 2006 15:47

Tommy Sheridan will be appearing on the BBC's "Question Time" programme tonight. BBC 1 - 10.35 pm.

by Clarification Thu Oct 12, 2006 15:59

The following was the text of the motion:

"This conference condemns the action of George McNeilage in making and
selling the "Tommy Sheridan video tape" to the News of the world.

We believe his actions are incompatible with socialist principle"

The WU tendancy were told that as they were not a platform they could not put forward motions so they got 10 other members to sign it. It was then rejected by the CAC on the grounds that it was not an emergency motion. When the WU objected Allan Green reead it out to conference and asked for a vote on whether or not WU would be allowed to explain why the motion should be allowed on the agenda. This was rejected by 3-1 majority. No vote was taken with regards the motion itself.

Initially the conference was due to spend the first day discussing Sheridan. When the motions were composited it was reduced to an hour and a half, then the SSP executive cut it to 30 minutes because the conference started late.

Interesting the RMT delegates opposed the SSP leadership.

Clearly the SSP leadership are unable or unwilling to address the behaviour of George McNeilage and at the same time as the Conference was refusing debate on this issue McNeilage was on TV defending his actions. The leadership of the SSP obviously agree with his actions.

by The RED JOKER Thu Oct 12, 2006 16:21

Regarding Sheridan appearing on Question Time tonight.

I'll not be back in time to see it so I wonder if big George NcNeilage could record it for me?

by the latest Thu Oct 12, 2006 18:25

The latest edition of the Weekly Worker has an interview with a member of the SSP's Workers Unity tendancy in which he expalins why they attempted to put forward a motion on the McNeilage tape.

Read the article at following link:

by BetaMax Thu Oct 12, 2006 18:25

He'll only tape it if you pay him. And even then overdub Tom and Jerry

by Curious Thu Oct 12, 2006 18:37

The WW article quotes Tommy as admitting he got £20,000 from a tabloid (in which he lied about his comrades). Anybody from the CWI or SWP care to comment on why it is right to take money from one sleazy rag and not from another?

by Fascinated Thu Oct 12, 2006 23:12

A lot of people, on both sides have been telling porkers in this whole affair. A lot of people, on both sides, have been using the media in a most dispicable fashion.

by GEO+ Fri Oct 13, 2006 11:58

The Sheridans received £30 000 ( not £20 000 as quoted in WW) from the Scottish tabloid The Daily Record.
This included Tommy posing topless and a double page of Gail Sheridan parading for a fashion shoot.
Again , please stick to the facts.

by John Meehan Tue Oct 17, 2006 01:09

Story at this link :

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2090-2404897,00....html

What will the SWP make of this? Did Galloway consult them? Interestingly, the
specific trigger point the Bethnal Green and Bow MP mentions is Sheridan being charged.

by Foolwatcher Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:20

Meehan you seem to place a lot of faith in what it says in the Murdoch media. My first reaction to reading the article you posted a link to was is this true and is this misinformation being spread by Murdoch's media to once again try and damge Solidarity and Tommy Sheridan.

by John Meehan Wed Oct 18, 2006 00:03

The interview can be found at this link :

http://www.redflag.org.uk/frontline/vol22/02mccombes.html

Alan McCombes says that one valid criticism of what the SSP did about the Sheridan crisis is that they "should have been more open about the decision". The minutes should have been published from the beginning.

He draws readers' attention to "Ed Moloney's book "A Secret History of the IRA".

The republican army minuted a decision tto call a Christmas Ceasefire, which led to an amusing dispute - read for yourself.

Personally, I agree that the non-publication of the minutes was a mistake - as was the futile attempt to keep them from the libel court.

by Cynic Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:09

The stupidity was recording the minutes in the first place!

Notice the way Geraldine Kennedy destroyed the information relating to the leak about Bertie a couple of weeks ago!

Even after recording the minutes there were other options than going to court and giving evidence on behalf of the NOTW. And don't give us this guff about that being Sheridan's fault (because of the minutes given to the court) the SSP leadership had already given the minutes to the Scottish Herald.

by Squalidarnosc Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:25

Or Tommy could have agreed to the decision of the EC. Imagine if he had decided to go against an EC decision of the SWP or CWI - if he was a member of either of those organisations.

by Stop Sheridan Party Wed Oct 18, 2006 18:36

Wasn't aware that the SSP was a centralist organisation.

by the latest Wed Oct 18, 2006 20:08

I've looked at the SSP journal Frontline and it's an interesting read; particularly Gregor Gall's article "party crisis in retrospect and context". It's not about the Tommy Sheridan controvery per se, but makes political points about how the SSP found it difficult to adjust from being a small far left group to being a small workers' party with 6 MSPs. There are relevant points here for the irish left. On another note, it seems the bauld Mr. Gall is in the process of writing not one, but two SSP-related books "Tommy Sheridan - a political biography" and "The Scottish Socialist Party - the rise and fall of a new political force?"

by John Meehan Fri Oct 20, 2006 00:09

Story at this link :

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/72476.html

by Share A Tan Fri Oct 20, 2006 10:42

...that Tommy is in Lebanon at the moment.
Just in case you are looking in Tommy - that will be a bellydancing club that you are looking for over there.

by John Meehan Tue Oct 24, 2006 02:03

The poll can be accessed on the front page of the SSP Site :

http://www.scottishsocialistparty.org/

Two opinion polls have now been published since Tommy Sheridan split from the SSP to form Solidarity.

They convey the same message - the SSP is on course to get electoral support similar to the last Scottish Parliament Election, when they returned with six seats.

We can await publication of further polls before drawing any definite conclusions - but it is, without doubt, encouraging news for supporters of the SSP.

An interesting new factor is a big jump in support for Scotttish Independence.

There's no political difference on this question between Tommy Sheridan and the SSP.

by Chicherin Tue Oct 24, 2006 16:46

I wouldn't pay much attention to those polls, its likely a question of public recognition. For years after the DL split the WP were still scoring 3% in opinion polls but when it came to elections they got less than 1%.

by John Meehan Wed Oct 25, 2006 00:33

An excellent article by Roz Paterson in the Red Pepper magazine can be read at this link :

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/Oct2006/oct-06-patterson.htm

Note especially the following extract :

"We also learned that the SWP, which joined the SSP only in 2001, has no place in an evolving political organisation. We saw how it destroyed the Socialist Alliance when it realised it couldn’t control it. We thought it would be different with us because its members were such a small minority. We were caught out, never having imagined they would so ruthlessly exploit an opportunity to split the party – and, they hoped, create a new one over which they had charge."

The same criticism (more or less) applies to the CWI/SP, which - just like the SWP - has jumped into bed with Tommy Sheridan in Solidarity.

In that context see :

"Sheridan and Byrne Unite to head Solidarity"

at this link :

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/72785.html

The proof of this pudding will be in the eating.

The next major turning point will probably be the election to the Scottish Parliament in May 2007.

Perhaps issues will clarify sooner - if, for example :

* The police charge people with perjury because of conflicting testimony at the Sheridan libel trial
* George Galloway carries out his reported threat to run in the 2007 Scottish Parliament Elections

The SWP and the SSP probably agree on one thing at the moment - that Galloway should not stand in Scotland next year!

by Yoshifumi Wed Oct 25, 2006 09:48

Will you explain John Meehan how you think this statement is accurate -

"We also learned that the SWP, which joined the SSP only in 2001, has no place in an evolving political organisation. We saw how it destroyed the Socialist Alliance when it realised it couldn’t control it. We thought it would be different with us because its members were such a small minority. We were caught out, never having imagined they would so ruthlessly exploit an opportunity to split the party – and, they hoped, create a new one over which they had charge."

The same criticism (more or less) applies to the CWI/SP, which - just like the SWP - has jumped into bed with Tommy Sheridan in Solidarity.

The CWI founded both the Socialist Alliance and the SSP therefore how does this statement apply to the CWI? The SWP don't control Solidarity and have very little influence so what is your point?

by newshound Fri Oct 27, 2006 22:32

Britain's largest rail union has said it is cutting all political links with the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP).
Bob Crow said it was not in his members' interests to be affiliated

read about it at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/6092304.stm

by Socialist - CWI Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:04 socialistpartyni at btconnect dot com

PUBLIC MEETING

TOMMY SHERIDAN

SOLIDARITY Member of Scottish Parliament

on the Struggle for a Socialist Alternative

5pm Thurs 2 November

Holiday Inn, Ormeau Ave (opposite BBC), Belfast

Organised by the Socialist Party

Tommy Sheridan recently made headlines when he took on and defeated the News of the World. The News of the World, which is part of the Murdock media empire, is a right wing rag which consciously targets anyone who stands up against the establishment.

It tried to sling mud at Tommy Sheridan hoping to discredit him and damage the socialist movement in Scotland - but this attempt backfired when Tommy Sheridan courageously took them to court and when a jury of working class people found in his favour.

The News of the World targeted Tommy Sheridan because of his record in fighting for the interests of working class people and for the ideas of Socialism in Scotland.

Tommy was a key leader of the struggle that defeated the poll tax. He was sent to prison during this campaign and made history by winning an election to Glasgow City Council from his prison cell.

Tommy was a founding member of the Scottish Socialist Party which, at the last election, won six seats to the Scottish Parliament. Some leading members of the SSP disgracefully sided with, and gave evidence on behalf of, the News of the World in the libel case. This has led to a split and Tommy Sheridan has launched a new party - "Solidarity, Scotland's Socialist Movement".

The Socialist Party's sister organisation in Scotland has helped launch "Solidarity" and is now actively helping build it.

Here in Northern Ireland, the working class has no political voice. If the Assembly is re-established it will be dominated, as things stand, by right wing sectarian parties who will carry on with the anti working class neo liberal policies now being implemented by New Labour Ministers.

We need a new party to represent the united interests of working class people and to fight for socialist change. What has happened in Scotland has many lessons for us in attempting to build such a party.

Come along to this meeting and hear first hand about the struggle for socialism in Scotland.

This will be a short meeting and will start on time - so try to get there for the 5pm start.

Contact the Socialist Party at 90232962 or e-mail: socialistpartyni@btconnect.com

by John Meehan Thu Nov 02, 2006 23:53

Read the Story at this link :
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1620782006...print

Opinion Polls in Scotland are showing consistently that a majority of voters favours independence - a policy favoured by both the SSP and Tommy Sheridan.

The Scotsman opinion poll puts the SSP at 4%, and Solidarity at 1% -

See Colin Fox's comments in the article article link above.

by Chicherin Fri Nov 03, 2006 10:54

Have you learned nothing from history?

After the WP/DL split. the WP were always doing better in the polls while DL were at 1%. But at the next election it was the other way round. The same thing is happening here. Its a question of public recognition. Solidarity will triumph in the real polls.

by John Maclean Fri Nov 03, 2006 13:17

More to the point, have neither of you learnt from history? The SSP may do better in the elections, or Solidarity may do better. We'll have to see. This is significant, because it's very useful to have a platform in the Scottish assembly, it can be used to promote radical ideas and encourage activism. But ultimately the measure of either party has to be their campaigning base. The real test of either the SSP or Solidarity will come after the elections.

Funny how people can forget the ABC of radical socialism when petty squabbles get in the way...

by Glesgae Lad Fri Nov 03, 2006 18:25

The SSP is more than the one trick pony that Squlidarity is.

by Curious Mon Nov 06, 2006 16:53

Isn't the attendance figures down about 300 on their first rally?

by the latest Tue Nov 07, 2006 15:24

Last Saturday, 250 members of ‘Solidarity – Scotland’s Socialist Movement’, attended the first national conference of the new party.

Read an account of this Conference by Philip Stott (CWI) at the following Link:

Quote:

"The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) used the conference to strongly argue against Solidarity being a socialist party. Instead, they advocated that Solidarity should be a "movement of the movements", a home for those fighting Islamophobia, for the anti-war movement and for those opposing climate change. During the debate on the name of the party, one SWP member said, "Socialism should not be in the name; if we remove it people will join us". The SWP voted for the name to be ‘Solidarity’, dropping the reference to ‘Scotland’s Socialist Movement’."

by John Meehan Wed Nov 08, 2006 00:53

According to Phil Stott

"Solidarity – SSM was launched at the beginning of September, by MSPs (Members of the Scottish Parliament), Tommy Sheridan, Rosemary Byrne, and by hundreds of socialists who broke with the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP), in disgust at the actions of the SSP leadership who sided with the (News of the World – NoW) against Tommy Sheridan during his defamation court case"

Interested people can read the position of the SSP leadership on the Sheridan libel case through many links on this thread - and they will very quickly see that the claim above - the SSP leadership "sided with the News of the World" - is a fairy tale.

This does not necessarily mean the the rest of Phil Sttott's story is dodgy, but corroboration from other sources should be sought before accepting this is a truthful well-balanced account of the Solidarity Conference.

Did the Solidarity conference discuss Scottish Independence in any detail?

The topic is not specifically mentioned on the agenda

http://www.solidarityscotland.org/content/view/57/

- it may have been mentioned during other debates.

Independence is coming to the fore as a major issue in Scotland - recent opinion polls, for the first time, show consistent majorities in favour of the break-up of Britain. We might see, in a few years time a "United Kingdom" of - wait for it - England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Blair recognises he has a fiight on his hands

See more details at this link :

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1645622006

by John Meehan Thu Nov 09, 2006 22:22

Richie Venton's Story at this link :

http://www.scottishsocialistvoice.net/pages/page3.html

by Reader Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:55

That's a story by Rosie Kane not by Richie Venton

by John Meehan Sat Nov 11, 2006 01:57

Richie Venton's response to RMT disaffiliation - story at this link :

http://colinfoxmsp.blogspot.com/

Apologies for posting wrong link first time out!

by mavis b good Sat Nov 11, 2006 14:15

Richie is right in saying that the policies of the SSP remain unchanged to the ones in place when the RMT took the decision to affiliate to the party.

What he doesn’t acknowledge is the behaviour of some members of the party and EC that are completely at odds with trade unionism i.e. disclosing the discussions taken place at an EC meeting to the Scottish Herald newspaper before talking to the membership about the meeting. Secretly filming a comrade and then selling it on to the News of the World. Running to the police. Refusing to condemn the Murdoch rag and instead using its attack a socialist to justify their actions.

If the party wants to move on then it has to address these actions instead of refusing to accept the impact they have had on the credibility of the party.

by John Meehan Mon Nov 13, 2006 00:52

Alan Thornett and Terry Conway's Report of the SSP October 7 2006 Conference is at this link :

http://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?page=print_a...=1161

by the latest Mon Nov 13, 2006 17:50

It had to happen. A production company is in talks with Channel 4 about making a docudrama about Tommy Sheridan’s defamation victory against the News Of The World. Now, who do you think they will get to play Tommy......?

See Story at following link:

by Pushkin Mon Nov 13, 2006 17:53

Tommy - Peter McMullan

John Meehan - Ian McKellan

by John Meehan Thu Nov 23, 2006 23:52

The story is at this link

http://www.iww.org/en/node/3021/print

which contains useful e-mail and postal addresses - and asks supporters of the eleven workers to send protests to Tommy Sheridan, Rosemary Byrne and others.

by John Meehan Tue Nov 28, 2006 00:52

The evidence is stacking up from recent polls :

* Scottish Independence is achievable in the next few years - Goodbye to the United Kingdom in its present form? Hello to the "UK" of England Wales and Northern Ireland?

* The Scottish National Party is likely to be the largest party in Holyrood after the May 2007 Elections

* The Scottish Socialist Party vote is holding up, and Solidarity is making no impact.

Quoting the recent Scotsman poll :

"The poll gives the SSP 3 per cent and 4 per cent on the two ballots - down only one point on the constituency vote - while Solidarity, Tommy Sheridan's new party, has dropped off the scale completely, registering so few supporters it has not achieved even 1 per cent in either vote. This suggests the SSP may return one or two MSPs, if it can concentrate its vote in specific areas, but that Solidarity will get nowhere near Holyrood next May."

These are established trends.

See the following links :

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1754062006

http://www.ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/911#comments

http://www.ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/scottish-voting-i...tion/

http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2006/Scotsman%20-%...6.asp

==========

The Scotsman also reports that Tommy Sheridan may be about to appear on Big Brother.

Here's the link :

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1521&id=1754462006

by tomeile Tue Nov 28, 2006 14:05

It looks like Sheridan'd bubble may have burst.and a good job too. What concerns me though is the precedent that could be set if the NOTW appeal succeeds on the grounds that the juries decision was "perverse" . I've never heard that one before ,but it sounds dangerous. Will NOTW lawyers be arguing that the jury was prejudiced against the newspaper and reached their decision for political rather than judicial reasons? How will that effect future cases like the Shannon Ploughshare 5 ?

by John Meehan Fri Dec 01, 2006 19:33

Ken Ferguson's article is here :

http://www.scottishsocialistparty.org/stories/2007elect....html

by D_D Sat Dec 09, 2006 19:38

Followers of this thread (now 245 comments long!) will be interested in some recently published literature providing a comprehensive and many-sided view on the split in the Scottish Socialist Party:

Issue No.13 (Autumn 2006) of ‘Emancipation and Liberation’, the journal of the Republican Communist Network, a ‘platform’ within the SSP, is given over to a collection of major documents and statements from both sides of the split (with most space given to the non-Sheridan side). Included is a short letter from the Irish Socialist Network to the SSP (already published on Indymedia). The RCN are at www.republicancommunist.org The ISN are at www.irishsocialist.net

Two essential documents missing from this collection are the SSP All-member Bulletin, ‘Crisis in the party: the fight for the truth’, of August 2006, which was authored by Alan McCombes, SSP national press and policy co-ordinator, and, also issued with this bulletin, the famous (or infamous) minutes of the fateful executive committee meeting of 9th November 2004. These can be found, along with a chronology of the split (an SSP narrative naturally) from October 2004 to August 2006, and some other pieces, at the SSP site www.scottishsocialistparty.org

The current issue (No.18, Winter 2006) of ‘Socialist View’ the journal of the (Irish) Socialist Party carries an article (‘Building a new socialist alternative’) by Philip Stott of the International Socialists, the Scottish section of the CWI, the International to which the Irish SP is affiliated. Cf. www.socialistparty.net

‘International Socialism’ (No.112, Autumn 2006), the theoretical journal “associated” with the (British) Socialist Workers Party includes ‘The split in the Scottish Socialist Party’ by Mike Gonzalez. Mike Gonzalez was a member of the executive committee of the SSP and a leading member of the Socialist Workers Platform (the SWP when it was in the SSP). Cf. www.isj.org.uk The journal is also on sale from the Irish SWP.

Finally, the November edition (No 3) of ‘Independent Left’, bulletin of the Campaign for an Independent Left, contains a short piece from Alan McCombes, ‘Crisis in Scottish Socialist Party’. IL is available from campindleft@eircom.net

by D_D Sun Dec 24, 2006 01:28

You can add to your SSP archive by accessing the recent issue of 'Frontline', concentrating on the split, at:

http://www.redflag.org.uk/frontline/vol22/02contents.html

Happy Christmas!

by Still a Leninist Sun Dec 24, 2006 01:58

D_D has lots to say on splits in Scotland but nothing to say on splits in Ireland.
So what about it Des. What about the ISN and the CIL?

by Never a Leninist Sun Dec 24, 2006 12:13

Socialist Democracy still stalking people I see...

by the RED JOKER Fri Dec 29, 2006 15:58

So , Peter Mullan is to direct and produce
Solidaritys Scottish Parliament 2007 Election Broadcast.
No surprise there - all those showbiz
luvvvies must stick together.
Seems a fittng way to bring down the final curtain on Sheridans political career - don't you think!

by D_D Fri Dec 29, 2006 23:50

I've had nothing at all to say on the SSP split, RJ. Not here anyway. The couple of postings I've made have been to direct readers to contributions by others elsewhere, and from both sides. But some day someone should attempt an overview of all this... Even in Ireland, where it is far from irrelevant.

The affairs of CIL are not nearly in the same league. It is not only me that has said nothing about that! I'll say this: unsatisfactory though it might have been, was it not a better way to separate than the subject of this thread?

HNY.

by D_D Fri Dec 29, 2006 23:55

Sorry bout that RJ. Wrong handle. Should not have been addressing you.

by John Meehan Thu Jan 04, 2007 22:25

The story is at this link :

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/78028.html

by John Meehan Sat Feb 03, 2007 00:22

New poll shows 'Solidarity' heading for oblivion

Read the story at this link :

http://www.scottishsocialistparty.org/election07/suppor....html

by Socialist Sat Feb 03, 2007 10:07

Well John

there clearly are conflicting polls. Another recent one show that 7% of voters were likely to vote Solidarity SSM in May.

What you don't comment on in this poll is that, if accurate, the SSP is also heading for oblivion as 3% would wipe out their parliamentary representation as well. Never mind Sheridan would have been shafted and the SSP could ride off into the sunset in the knowledge that they had succeeded where Murdoch had failed.

Meanwhile the working class of Scotland have lost what little representation they had.

by Another socialist Sat Feb 03, 2007 19:18

Oh dear sweet lord jesus christ can somebody get "socialist" and throw cold water in his face until he snaps out of it? That's right, sure, sure, of course - the SSP created the whole fiasco just cos they wanted to get Tommy Sheridan, they don't care how much damage they do to the left just as long as they get him. Where do you get this nonsense? And the irony is, you're doubtless a member of one of the two organisations that used to denounce Sheridan as a reformist and a stalinist and whatever else...

by John Meehan Thu Feb 22, 2007 01:01

The Herald story is at this link :

http://www.theherald.co.uk/misc/print.php?artid=1206609

by Sp member Thu Feb 22, 2007 02:05

A spokesman for the Scottish Socialists [SSP] declined to comment on the latest developments, but added: "We have kept abreast of the police inquiry and have co-operated with it in whatever way we have been asked." This says it all really the SSP will help the police anyway they can!

by Ted's student grant Thu Feb 22, 2007 02:13

Ok, let's get this straight - 11 members of the SSP are faced with the threat of going to jail for perjury, because Tommy Sheridan decided to lie in court. So you expect them to go to jail to protect Tommy Sheridan, is that right? When the police are investigating you to decide whether or not you should be charged with perjury, a very serious offence which carries a jail sentence, you should simply refuse to co-operate - instead of saying "well actually I didn't lie in court", which is all they've done?

God this is pathetic, so pathetic. Every time you post something you drag the name of the SP/CWI further into the mud. They should put a leash on you

by Ted's student grant Thu Feb 22, 2007 02:16

And another thing - do you really believe Tommy Sheridan hasn't been "co-operating with the police"? IE answering their questions

by Share A Tan Mon Feb 26, 2007 21:25

Tommy to fight in Dubai at a celebrity boxing tournament.
http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=298762007

And look who the sponsors are.

by John Meehan Mon Mar 05, 2007 20:05

The story is at this link :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and...7.stm

by John Meehan Wed Mar 21, 2007 00:33

The Sunday Herald Reports :

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var...s.php

by Tam Fri Apr 06, 2007 12:43

Word has it that Tommy is about to announce that constituency votes should be given to the SNP in the forthcoming Scottish Parliament elections.
It seems he thinks that has the SWP and CWI over a barrel. What are they going to do split?
Look forward to the oral gymnestics ahead.

by Andy B - SSP Sat Apr 07, 2007 20:47

Yeah it will be interesting to see what the CWI say/do when Tommy comes out and backs the SNP. The SSP abides by the democratic decision of March 2006 conference NOT to back the SNP in a vote (not that anyone would call for it).

Despite this the CWI still raised the boogeyman of the "rump" SSP backing the SNP in one of their docs during the split - what will they do now given Sheridans very REAL support for them as opposed to the fairytale scenario they outlined?

"Its only Sheridans personal views, not Solidaritys..."

PS: Anyone see their manifesto front page? If anyone still has any doubts that this whole affair was about anything other than preserving a moralistic family man reputation then have a swatch -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/04_04_07_sol...n.pdf

How long will it be before poor Gabrielle gets force fed a burger?

by hs - sp Mon Apr 09, 2007 00:00

Is that so? Where have you gotten this information? Is it rumour, reports or something more solid? If true the cwi will have to consider the reasons for its mistaken orientation. If we got it so wrong we will need to seriously consider why. There was alot of unease about the whole situation and unfortunately I have to say I don't think there'll be alot of suprise if this is the outcome.

by Tam Mon Apr 09, 2007 01:02

There's been talk of it on UKLN and two of Solidarity's press officers are frequent posters to it and have not only not denied it but actually seem to endorse the postition. I think you can take it as true.
I actually paraphrased one of Solidarity's cheerleader's who originally came up with the statement about the CWI/SWP being over a barrel and wondering what they could do - resign? How the CWI even agreed to the front page of the manifesto is beyond me.
Talk about the cult of Tommy's Hello magazine image. All that was missing was a Scrabble board.
.

by John Meehan Mon Apr 09, 2007 18:10

The source for this story is a Daily Record article dated April 5 :

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_headline=tommy-the....html

Readers familiar with the Sheridan saga are aware that the Solidarity co-leader has a close media and financial relationship with this newspaper.

by Andy B - SSP Mon Apr 09, 2007 22:22

Tam where have you seen any of the press corps back the stance on UKLN? I haven't seen any of them on it for ages, and I haven't seen any of them comment.

Things have been strangely quiet in the Solidarity camp recently. I may be lapsing into Kremlinology, but why is it Solidarity has a message of support from Galloway on their front page but nothing about their recent manifesto launch?

by John Meehan Wed Apr 18, 2007 21:51

Debate between the SSP's Carolyn Leckie and Solidarity's Rosemary Byrne is at this link :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/6568159.stm

by Scotch Egg Fri May 04, 2007 07:42

Tommy Sheridan loses.