Domino effect
Dominoes, anyone? Wendy Alexanderβs rivals say that she should also tumble out of office in the wake of .
Ms Alexander, the Scottish Labour leader, is adamant that Mr Hainβs resignation is a matter for him. She says she expects to be exculpated when the .
The two cases are rather different in scale. Peter Hain has quit βto clear his nameβ over undeclared donations of some Β£100,000 to his deputy leadership campaign.
The police have now been asked to investigate by the Electoral Commission.
Wendy Alexander is under investigation by the commission because she received a donation of Β£950 from a Jersey-based businessman - who was not entitled to participate in UK party political funding.
Politically, though, rival parties are, understandably, seeking to compare and contrast. Both the SNP and the Tories say it is difficult to see how she can stay in office now that Mr Hain has quit. Lib Dems say the βstorm cloudsβ are gathering.
Does it add to the pressure upon Labour and Wendy Alexander? Yes, palpably yes. Is there a straight read-through from Hain to Alexander?
Rivals say yes. .
Ms Alexander is keen to draw a distinction between illegal and impermissible actions. She knows - and regrets - that her campaign manager Tom McCabe acknowledged, in response to a question from me, that .
Rather, she says, they failed to isolate, sufficiently, an impermissible donation: an error comparable, she argues, to that committed by others.
Even if one accepts that, it leaves unresolved the question of Charlie Gordon MSP who solicited the donation. Were his actions impermissible - or illegal?
The Electoral Commission is tonight insisting that it will take βas long as is necessaryβ to conduct its investigation into Wendy Alexander.
Despite that statement - which perhaps reflects some slight exasperation at political and media impatience - I would expect the ruling to emerge next week.
The decision in the Peter Hain case was taken by the commission at their meeting in Edinburgh yesterday. Here at Holyrood, their responsive statement on Ms Alexander caused a flutter because of this sentence: βWhere necessary, the commission takes advice from other authorities, including prosecuting authorities.β
On inquiry, it was stressed that this was a general position - and did not refer explicitly to the Scottish Labour case. The commission were simply keen to stress the thorough nature of their task, overall.
So, to clarify, where are we? Rivals say the Hain fate will overtake Ms Alexander. She is adamant that she will be cleared.
To clarify further (if such a task is possible), Team Alexander admit that they accepted an impermissible donation.
They admit that is a breach of the electoral law: just one, they say, among hundreds of technical breaches of the rules regularly logged by the Electoral Commission across all the parties.
What they deny is knowingly breaking the law.
I'm 
Comments
Throughout this murky affair Peter Hain's main line of defence seemed to be that even though he failed to declare his campaign donations, everyone who did in fact donate was permitted, legally and morally, to do so. Despite this, he has now obviously gone.
Wendy Alexander has no such defence and anyone who has witnessed her performances at FMQs would have to draw the conclusion that she is holding back for fear of someone, anyone, mention the elephant in the room.
This cannot go on, and neither can Ms Alexander.
hi brian, i'm sure i came across a wee piece of information that may help to explain why ms alexander is so bullish. when a sunday paper listed all the people who had contributed to the fund that was never needed 2 names were ommited as they were serving on quangos. is the electoral commision not a quango??
maybe it's just me. should nicol stephen not move south a bit with his hyper sensitive nostrils??if he thinks aberdeen is bad he should try living in renfrewshire!!!
Throughout this murky affair Peter Hain's main line of defence seemed to be that even though he failed to declare his campaign donations, everyone who did in fact donate was permitted, legally and morally, to do so. Despite this, he has now obviously gone.
Wendy Alexander has no such defence and anyone who has witnessed her performances at FMQs would have to draw the conclusion that she is holding back for fear of someone, anyone, mention the elephant in the room.
This cannot go on, and neither can Ms Alexander.
It makes no difference if these donations were undeclared, impermissible or illegal. This was serious abuse and knowing circumvention of electoral law by senior Labour MPs and MSPs.
Also the Electoral Commission should now stand aside and let the police investigate, because these cases higlight a systemic problem at the highest reaches of the Labour party.
Wendy Alexander and Peter Hain can have their day in court to protest their innocence just like everyone else facing a serious charge.
Funny how it takes the Westminster political machine (opposition pressure, Electoral Commission, and media) whirring into action to force those same elements up here to finally take their heads out of the sand. Even the Lib Dems have now admitted they weren't asleep in December! That's got to have Wendy concerned.
When the small minority of interested parties analyse this mess in a few years time, the only thing that will emerge with any credit will be the Sunday Herald, and their fine Political Editor, the only media outlet prepared to hold the establishment party to any sort of account. If it wasn't for their reporting, which must disturbingly be viewed as courageous in the current climate, we would be none the wiser.
Or maybe you would have dutifully probed on our behalf, Brian?
Either way, you've kindly named the two fall-guys for us, whose main crime seems to have been not doing a better job of covering up for their boss. And of course it goes without saying that we can look forward to seeing Jackie Baillie's honest appraisal of the situation on Newsnight soon. Don't you just love Scottish politics?
PS: This Wendy telling us again to wait for the EC to give its findings wouldn't be the same one who was on telly last week stating she's be cleared, was she?
Brian - according to you "the two cases are rather different in scale." So, if a bank robber steals Β£103,000 that is not okay, but if a bank robber steals Β£950 that is okay? Is this a new world with a new set of laws and ethics invented by Brian Taylor? Some of us still live in the real world where if you do something against the law and get caught you expect to be investigated by the police and face criminal charges. ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Scotland reported Alexander's campaign manager Tom McCabe as saying: "Clearly, at the moment, there's been a breach of the law, as it stands." Political reporter Andrew Black Wrote: "It is illegal for people who are based off-shore to donate to a UK political party." It is outrageous that the Electoral Commission have taken so long to refer this matter to the police and they should do so immediately if they want to save any shred of public trust in the Commission, the police or the Scottish political process.
Let's wait till the Electoral Commission reports before we nudge the double blank.
Wendy Alexander's team have confessed to a crime. Subsequent allegations about changing names of donors etc. would suggest conspiracy as well as the crime confessed to. Legally, she is in a far worse place than Hain.
The only reason that one or more people in Team Alexander have not already been brought to book is the woeful handwringing of a pro-Labour Scottish electoral commission and the Scottish media, Paul Hutcheon excepted, looking the other way.
In fainess, she is so inept as Labour leader that the FM would probably be disappointed if she were to go!
hi brian, is the electoral commision a quango? the reason i'm asking is when this was all brought to our attention all the people who actually donated to the fund that was never needed 2 names were omitted because they were serving on quango's.
mmm is this why ms alexander is so bullish ???
this is obviously a job for nicol stephen's hypersensitive nose.
if he thinks Aberdeenshire is bad he should try living in renfrewshire! so come on nicol are u a man or a mouse?
If Peter Hain feels he has to resign over donations that he did not declare but were perfectly legal, surely Alexander has to resign over donations that were illegal?
"Impermissable", surely, is no different to "illegal"? They both mean she shouldn't have accepted it.
Not knowingly breaking the law means not knowing that Jersey was not part of the UK.
Now, will Wendy and her team be bold enough to admit that they really are that thick?
I heard David Cameron on todays afternoon news being asked about Wendy Alexander.
According to Cameron, Alexander and Haine are in different leagues because of the cash amount. Wendy being the small potatoes of the two.
Wrong is wrong and should be punished
A Sheep or a Lamb Brian, it matter not.
This all reminds me of Willie, 'Deacon Brodie' who designed and built a gallows only to find himself at the wrong end of it. New Labour drew up the electoral regulations for the very purpose of preventing this kind of dodgy dealing. Now, it looks very much as though they'll have to face the consequences. I have grown, like most of Scotland I suspect, tired of Ms Alexander's indignant protestations of innocence. The fact is, she knew the cash came from outwith the UK and she wrote to thank the donor. This makes here undoubtedly guilty. No doubt she has her hopes pinned on being let-off by the Labour appointed Electoral Commission. Is that why she is so insufferably smug or is she delusional?
I repost my comments on the W Alexander/P Hain comparisons from earlier:
"I fail to see how Wendy Alexander's case substantially differs, apart from being even more clear-cut.
She admitted breaking the law (I fail to see how doing it 'inadvertently' makes any difference), her campaign team covered it up by lying about the source.
There also appears to be clear cut evidence that the cover up - by changing the source of the donor on the documentation submitted to the Electoral Commission - was intentional. To talk about 'just 950 pounds' is a red herring; it was her campaign team - for which she is responsible - who chose the amount to avoid the need for disclosure.
Worse still, Wendy did not have to face a leadership election, she was appointed unopposed, but kept the money raised anyway.
To my amateur eye, it appears the same, with less money but more intent to deceive"
The Electoral Commission took days to decide on Harman and Hain. They have taken months over Alexander. It's obviously to much of a mess for them. They should hand over the case to Scotland's police and Crown officials. Only a proper process can clear the smell of sleaze and lack of cleverness that surrounds Alexander and her 2 brains.
Agree that this cannot possibly be dismissed as a difference of scale.
The law was broken and worse it appears that attempts were then made to cover up that fact.
Wendy Alexander was doomed from the moment Tom McCabe admitted the law had been broken. I know it is now fashionable in the Labour Party to brazen things out but as Peter Hain's eventual departure has proved, if it was a resigning matter when you were found out , it remains one all the time you cling on to office.
A basic foundation of Scots Law (and probably others) is that ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Just saying "I didn't know it was wrong" does not excuse wrongdoing.
Politicians cant afford to be tainted,sleeze and incompetence are the additive for apathy,if you choose a political life you must be cleaner than the whiteist snow,as far this story goes it is an issue that lies with Tom McCabe and Charlie Gordon,does it involve Ms A lexander,yes!so far as there is no excuse not to ask the question about donation and funds from idividuals
As a nationalist supporter I simply dont want Wendy to go, she is far too valuable where she is: providing yet another reason for the people of Scotland to abandon Labour for good. However, if the matter in question is legality and not scale - then she should have already gone! Though I want her to stay for partisan reasons, for the good of scottish politics she should probably go ... a strong opposition is always required to scrutinise the action of the government of the day. And Labour under her at Holyrood will never constitute "a strong opposition".
The Electoral Commission have had months now to decide about Alexander. It took days to decide that the Hain and Abrahams cases should go to the police. The Alexander case is obviously too complex and murky for them. They should be told to hand it over to Scotland's police and Crown authorities for proper investigation. A court should be deciding guilt or innocence here and an appropriate punishment if required.
If we suspect or know that a crime has been commited we are encouraged to call "Crimestoppers". Has anyone called about Wendy? Seriously, has anyone reported her to the Police and asked them to investigate? I have the feeling that now that Hain has fallen, no action will be taken on a "minor" matter of Β£950. Try that excuse when you get charged with going a few MPH over the limit (inadvertantly of course, with no intention of deliberate wrong-doing)
Brian, correct me if I am wrong but did Wendy not write a 'thank you' note to this gentleman in Jersey? Surely she should have realised that alarm bells shoud have rung loud and clear and asked for the situation to be clarified. The fact that she wrote and did not realise, is arrogance of a rather greater scale than Peter Hain's tardieness, where, at the moment, he does appear to have been somewhat complacent. Wendy knowingly wrote to the guy without question, it appears. I cannot see that the sum involved is actually all that relevant - it was wrong and she did nothing to correct it. Ignorance of the law is no defence and why she did not know is anybody;s guess. It also has been reported that rather a lot of taxpayer's money went towards training candidates of the Electoral Law a while back, so why the ignorance?
Normally the components of a crime are divided to those the make up the actus reus and those that make up the mens rea.
The actus reus is the dead itself. For instance for someone guilty of criminal damage it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt that they damaged property belonging to another.
The mens rea is to do with the thought of the defendant in committing the act To convict someone of criminal damage it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt that: a) the defendant committed the damage intentionally and b) they did not believe the owner would have consented had they know of the circumstances.
You are not guilty of criminal damage if you accidentally drop a glass in a pub nor are you guilty if you knock-down the door to a house in order to reach the householder who you can see to be unconscious on the floor.
To be satisfied that Peter Hain or Wendy Alexander were guilty of a criminal offence rather than simply making an accounting oversight, we must be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that they intended to accept illegal donations and/or mislead the Electoral Commission. And we must remember here that neither of the accused are accountants.
Is it reasonable to think Mr Hain could have failed to declare Β£100,000 by accident?
From my point of view the answer is probably no.
Could he have received a huge amount of money from a think tank without wondering why he had never heard of them?
Again, I suspect not.
Could Ms Alexander have failed to be aware that her campaign had accepted a donation of Β£950 which came from a man resident in a British protectorate and thus outside of the UK and that this was illegal?
Yes she could have. Evidence has not yet surfaced to establish that she is guilty.
To give a more everyday example of a similar thing - should someone be considered criminal because they slip up on their tax return?
Sometimes people are prosecuted. Normally it's considered an honest mistake.
In both cases the unintentional action is illegal. The parties are not entitled to the money. But is also against the law to accidentally drop a glass in a bar and in theory you could be taken to court to recover the cost of the damage.
But illegal (or impermissible under the law) is not the same as criminal and deserving of punishment.
At this stage I should say Iβm not a supporter of the Labour Party and have no opinion on who should lead them. However, I feel a wee bit sorry for Wendy who has enough on her plate without all the fuss about something that was probably an oversight. (I mean come on she didnβt need it and I really canβt see her risking everything on campaign funds that she didnβt need. It must have been a mistake. I mean get real).
More often than not Wendy enters the Holyrood chamber at FM's question time with outdated and incorrect research which makes her look foolish,this, in conjuction with her ability to appear totally uncomfortable during the session qualifies Miss Alexander as the SNP's greatest asset outwith the party.
Long may Wendy continue her reign at the helm of the Scottish Labour ship which is floundering.
Leaving aside the murky issue of the "think tank" donor to Hain's pot of money, the Alexander affair is worse than Hain's. The fact that the donation to Alexander was "impermissable", was accepted and not properly reported reeks of illegality. In any event, the parsing of "impermissable" and "illegal" is Clintonesque. Furthermore, the scale of donations is totally irrelevant.
Absent Alexander being charged and prosecuted, the whole system of the rule of law on which western democracies are founded would be under threat in Scotland. We would be a joke country. This surely is intolerable even for Labour supporters. We are all in trouble in this country if Alexander skates free.
Finally, the Electoral Commission's outrageous pussy footing around this issue speaks volumes, especially when Team Alexander has already admitted to breaking the law. What more do these people need? Can it possibly be true that the police are still not involved in Alexander's case, despite the admission of illegality?
#6
He didn't say that one was ok and one wasn't. He said they were different in scale. Which they are.
It looks like Mrs Alexander may have to resign.I wonder what impact this will have on the scottish labour party.Losing a leader after just a few months is a bit of a disaster really! I feel sorry for her.
The real question is not whether Wendy Alexander should be cleared or not. We should be asking why the Electoral Commission hasn't sent in the police before now.
Let's be clear here. there is one reason and one reason only why the SNP and their new found Tory pals are so desperate to get rid of Wendy Alexander: she's the only politician in the Parliament who can match Alex Salmond blow for blow.
The two cases are different, there is not a police investigation into Wendy Alexander.
The SNP seem to be fudging the facts for political gain. SNP want to discredit Labour at every turn, fmq's is evidence of that. Everything that has happened since SNP took power that's not good, get's blamed on the previous Executive. It's dull.
#8, I think your last point is correct, but I'd be interested in other people's views..
Surely from an SNP/Lib Dem/Tory/Green point of view... it would be better to let Wendy carry on in her post?
Even setting aside the Wendygate funding scandal, she's been awful since she took over. First Minister's Questions, in particular, has been embarrassing. Labour supporters must be thinking the unthinkable, i.e. Bring Back Jack McConnell..!
What do people think?
I'm not a supporter of Wendy or of Labour, but isn't some of this bordering on the hysterical? Alex Brodie seems to think that if you steal you'll automatically face criminal charges. But you won't, necessarily. Quite often the police will give lawbreakers a talking to(for instance, kids caught shoplifting will get hauled before their parents). Motorists may get a warning and get let off. Technically you should get charged for possessing a small amount of cannabis. But you won't.
Give her a ticking off. Β£950 for an internal election that never even took place. Strewth!
It seems to me that as The Electoral Commission and the Parliamentary Standards Authorities oversee the implementaion of the rules relating to donations of all the various sorts that it would make sense for them to set up some sort of arrangement whereby all donations would be initially channelled through them,possibly by an office setup for such a purpose,with the donors giving their own details,what/who the cash was intended for etc etc . These donations would then be passed on to their intended destination. Details of the donations could be made public at intervals or by Information requests .
How does that sound ?
I think Ms Alexanders performances as leader of the party of which I've been a member all of my adult life are in themselves enough reason for her to go.
Now with this cascade effect from the Hain resignation I think her clinging on will damage the party even further (if that's possible) and indeed the country as the SNP will in effect have no real opposition despite being a minority administration.
If she has any decency she should go and we the beleaguered rank and file of the Labour Party should go cap in hand to a big game player, someone like John Reid and beg him to come out of retirement.....even the return of Henry McLeish would be better than her!!
As a labour party member and activist I am disgusted the way the party has behaved over this sleaze and corruption. Now that Hain has gone this will hopefully lead to Harman and Alexander falling on their sword too.
In going round the doors, all we are getting is questions about how much have our leaders taken in back hander's and is everyone in Labour on the take?
We are unable to get across our message on all the policies we have been developing since May 2007.
My worry is that we are also loosing members, this will continue to be the case whilst these people who have taken money against the law remain in post. Every tome Ms Alexander speaks in parliament, people are laughing behind their hands. How are we as activists meant to counter this humiliation?
Key to the voters is that these people are charged by police and not merely resign form their positions. The full force of the law must be seen to followed.
I fear for the labour party, seems to me Salmond has taken over John Smith's mantle, and Scottish labour are following a right of centre home counties agenda that will result in wipe out in Scotland.
I and many others believe the answer lies in the return of Henry McLeish a much underestimated inspiration to many of us in the labour party in Scotland
Henry would sort this nonsense and corruption out once and for all!
F McLean
Since Wendy's team have admitted illegal acts it is a puzzle why the electoral commision has taken so long to refer this to the old bill.
However please lets keep Wendy the FM can always use a straight man and we all need a good laugh.
It seems to me that in addition to the acknowledged mistakes/crimes associated with Wendy Alexander and Peter Hain, there is no desire by either party to be accountable for their team's deeds or their own, "It wasn't me" or "I didn't mean it" permeates all their utterances on the issue. Where now duty and honour in public life?
If I get stopped for doing 40mph in a 30mph area, the excuse 'It was just a lapse in concentration' does not wash. It might be a mistake, but I'll be prosecuted just the same.
What is there for the Electoral Commission to consider? They should let the police do their job.
She's admitted she's guilty. No excuses. Go!
In the period from May 2007 some 40 MSP's have claimed the cost of Data Protection Registration
Of the remainder some must have overlooked their entitlement to claim the Β£35.00 Registration Fee and the rest (assuming they do not hold or process personal information that relates to living individuals and which is held on a computer) have overlooked the need to register with the Information Commissioners Office.
Since such a failure to register as a Data Controller constitutes a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 and worse is a criminal offence there is a need to identify all MSP's who are potentially in such a position. Trusting the Information Commissioner has the resolve to prosecute those found to be in breach.
Since MSPβs and their staff have no doubt had training and reminders in thismatter let there be no question that lack of knowledge /awareness will be an acceptable defence from those subsequently identified as being in breach of the Act. Anything less will leave voters with the distinct impression that there's one law for them and another for the law makers.
On checking the public register at www.ico.gov.uk/ESDWebPages/search.aspthere seems to be something of a cross party failing in this regard. Check out the public register and find out if your MSP details are there.
Lets remember the law is not like pick and mix and also there is a time in the life of every legislature when it slips over from complacency into arrogance, and from arrogance into even indifference for the law. Trusting this is not the situation here.
Wendy is a lame duck if she stays(she admitted to breaking the law) and Labour in Scotland is in meltdown if she goes. That is the reality of where we are at Brian,we need a pro active and positive opposition to the SNP not an opposition that says salt because the SNP say sugar.
Is'nt there a computer company to investigate?
A crossrail donation and that friend of Mr Sarwar?
Surely not just Β£999.99p?
How many donations under a thousand pounds does it take to fund a Labour party one horse leadership campaign?
Is'nt there a computer company to investigate?
A crossrail donation and that friend of Mr Sarwar?
Surely not just Β£999.99p?
How many donations under a thousand pounds does it take to fund a Labour party one horse leadership campaign?
Brian the two cases certainly are different in scale. Peter Hain stands accused of not registering timeously legal donations. I believe that the SNP have been guilty of that, and I can understand how that could happen, although the sum involved in Hain's case is jaw dropping. I have no interest in throwing stones at Hain whatsoever, and as far as I am concerned he has done the honourable thing by resigning.
Wendy's case is different, she as the regulated donee accepted an illegal donation and did not take reasonable steps or show due diligence in checking it's legality, as she is required to do by law.
The fact that Hain is being investigated by the Police and Ms Alexander isn't, is quite astounding given that Hain's offence is relatively minor. Or are we all supposed to accept that it's the sum involved that is the issue, not the principle ?
And Wendy's confidence in this matter is very perplexing.
"The Electoral Commission is tonight insisting that it will take βas long as is necessaryβ to conduct its investigation into Wendy Alexander."
As far as I can recall, the news of the donation broke in early December 2007.
Could someone at the Electoral Commission please explain how it can take so long to investigate ONE donation?
Do they perhaps work part-time? (Just one hour a week possibly), (with a 20 minute lunch break).
There is much talk everywhere about Political Donations so here is an
idea.
The Electoral Commission sets up an office or offices and all
political donations MUST be channelled through them detailing who the
donor is and where the donation is intended to go to ..General
Election funding,Party funding,Leadership Election Funding and so on .
That would mean all donations were known and the information would be
made public at intervals ( that would be a requirement) or though
Information requests...there would be no anonymous donations) and if
it was found that other donations were made then the matter would be
illegal and immediately referred to the police .The running costs could be paid for by either the main parties or by a percentage of the donations .
How does that sound ?
Wendy doesnt resign she will be a lame duck leader and Labour implodes if Wendy does resign Labour implodes just as the Conservatives did in the Major years.
Brian. You appear to have forgotten that the illegal donation was also fraudulently misrepresented as coming from a completely separate Glasgow company when it actually came from a Mr Green in the Channel Islands.
And how, as reported, can a member of the independent judiciary give money to a political party?
Personally I hope there won't be a domino effect just yet... the longer Wendy Alexander lingers, the longer she'll be dead political weight around Scottish Labour's feet and not only because of allegations of murky donations. Just what the doctor ordered.
Hi Brian, Wee Wendy an Big Jacki are now holding parliament, politics, the elecorate and the law in contempt! or in my place of work language, stuff you lot I'll dae whit ah like, how ah like, when ah like ,ok!
The defence appears that they did not know what they were doing.
Ignorance is not accepted in this country as a defence as far as I am aware, then again I am equally not sure about incompetance either. Do we really want arrogant incompetant leaders of the Country?
as i posted before on herald website--myself (council employee at city chambers) and contact at scottish parliament (security) are awaiting the whitewash of wendy alexander by the electoral commission.
once it is announced we will put further revelations into the public domain which will finish wendys career and irreparably damage the labour party in scotland and have major consequences for the labour party in the u.k.
the days of stitching up the public by the labour party are gone.
How can a senior public office holder ever claim βknot knowingβ as a defence and excuse for breaking the law? None of the (diminishing number of) people who vote Wendy Alexander and others into power would ever be allowed such a defence; even against regulatory authorities never mind the law.
This is especially so when it is the party that the office holder that introduced the rules.
So long as the Electoral Commission sticks to these basics, Wendy Alexander and Charlie Gordon should be brought fairly and properly to account through due process. But you know, there is a growing sense of unease and disquiet amongst the Scottish public about whether the Commission is quite up to this.
(Despite experience Iβm trying posting here again, hoping it does make itβ¦ and if it does that it does not strangely disappear shortly afterwards (despite being neither offensive or libelous in any way)).
Whether Wendy stays or goes it is clearly a lose / lose situation for Scottish Labour with the potential for a knock on effect at Westminster.
Rock and a Hard Place.
Brian, could somebody explain to me what exactly do these money grabbing politicians actually do with the money they have recieved in donations. This all seems to be a fantastic gravy train, after all why do individuals want to give away thousands of pounds to Wendy, Peter and Hariet? Do they have have any influence over the things they vote for? Just how clean is the British political system?
"Alex Brodie seems to think that if you steal you'll automatically face criminal charges."
Jimmy - please do me the courtesy of not misreading my mind, thanks! And I am not the idiot you seem to be suggesting. If a shoplifter gets caught maybe they will be let off lightly. But when an elected politician gets caught breaking the law it is reasonable to expect them to be punished for it. We don't have to accept that ther is one law for Wendy and one for the rest of us!
It seems mighty strange to me that Wendy can write to thank the guy in the Channel Islands and not have had alarm bells ringing! Ignorance of the rules is no defence in any situation. She may have taken information at face value but to actually WRITE.
Sorry there is too much of a smell round this to be 'allowed'. I just hope that the Electoral Commission are up to the job as otherwise the Scottish public are going to be demanding a lot of answers from them as to what they ACTUALLY do. Have they got the teeth to enforce the law?
Like Thud, I would love to know what some of these characters do with all these donations on what is an 'internal' party campaign.
The point is Wendy Alexander and possibly one or more of her campaign team acted illegally and broke the law. Whether deliberately or not is irrelevant, `ignorance` is not a defence.
What myself and many others would like answered is;, `Why are our Police waiting for the Electoral Commission Report before they decide to investigate or not?. And why have you as a ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ political correspondent for Scotland failed to raise this question?
I've said it before and I'll say it again now.
It's time for her to go. Doesn't matter if it was an honest mistake, or if it was some office junior. Her names on the door, and, as the American's say, the buck stops here.
I'm not saying she has to resign her seat in parliament just yet. That will have to wait until the Police (who should have been called several weeks ago) have investigated and the Crown decides whether or not there are charges to be brought. At that point, she should resign her seat too. Although were it me I would resign both right now and keep the one thing only you yourself can destroy; your honour.
However, she won't do that. She's a labour politician. Honour is not in her creed.
This is the main reason I will never, ever ever vote either Labour or Tory. Not even their policies make me do this; it's the fact that they're all, to a women, unconscionable, dishonourable toerags I wouldn't trust with one penny of my money nor one second of my time.
Well, maybe I'm being a little hard, perhaps not all of them are totally depraved. I've just not met nor heard of them yet.
On a slightly different note, did anyone else note the story over the weekend of the SNP government intervening in the Aviemore planning issue, to the financial benefit of MacDonald Hotels - whose Chief Exec "just happens" to be an SNP donor.....
We need a different system of funding Political processes, so that we can be sure that decisions are being taken for the right reasons.
PLEASE stay Wendy - u r a great reminder of why Nu Labour and Lib Dems were booted out - and as for the attempts to smear Salmond by buying a few hacks a dinner - get real!!! - Salmond has u lot for breakfast.
#56 Michael MacFarlane asks a very valid question that I'd very much like the answer to. Why does it appear to be the case that the police are answerable to an unelected body, potentially politically biased at that, namely the Electoral Commission?
Is that how things actually stand in law, because that certainly appears to be the case, and if not, why have the police not acted already, as it appears that an illegal act has taken place and even been admitted.
This is not rhetorical, I'm genuinely interested in the answer.
#58 wrote
On a slightly different note, did anyone else note the story over the weekend of the SNP government intervening in the Aviemore planning issue, to the financial benefit of MacDonald Hotels - whose Chief Exec "just happens" to be an SNP donor.....
The reported facts are different, "Do bear in mind that four MSPs from different Parties asked Salmond to get involved because of unacceptable delays that had held things up to the extent that financial backers were threatening to pull out. So it isn't about dirty deals or Salmond doing favours for his own backers. It was about responding quickly to a request by a group of MSPs from all Parties asking him to intervene. He did so and he got a result."
If as it appears, Wendy Alexander did in fact break the law,why has the relevant Constabulary not started an investigation? Could it be that the oft' quoted "one law for them, another law for us" does in fact hold sway in this case: or is there somewhere out there, a Chief Constable who has no intention of jeapordising his hopes of a knighthood? While Holyrood is overloaded with the lesser end of the Scottish legal profession surely the law should be totally without favour, if a crime was committed it should be investigated and if required, charges should be brought .If a judge then decides that there was no intent and no punishment is neccessary ,well and good ,but the due process pf law must be followed.Neither the Electoral Commission nor Des Browne has the right to decide how the law operates or whether a crime has been committed.
#56 & 60, I'm guessing that no-one has actually made a complaint to the Police on this matter. That is usually how things happen with the Police. Unless they catch someone "red handed" they can only act if a complaint is made..... although your version of skullduggery and political bias is much more juicy!
If you're so bothered about it, why dont you make that call?
if the law was broken why were the police not called from the start.
Would that be the project in Aviemore that the female Labour MSP asked Alex Salmond to help move along, and then this same MSP developed a case of amnesia.
Also Brian it would appear that several leading figures of the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ in Scotland were at the dinner hosted by Wendy and are back on message, as the anti SNP reporting these last couple of days is verging on hysterical.
Their defence is that 'they didn't knowingly break the law.' Could this be a new precedence for the rest of us. Sorry, but I didn't knowingly break the speed limit!!!!!!!!!!
As a nationalist I can only hope Miss Alexander continues to lead Scottish Labour.
Notwithstanding First Minister Salmond's contribution,Wendy is by far our greatest asset in our quest for a country of our own.
Scottish Labour should remember:
Those that dance must pay the fiddler!
Just took 5 minutes to read the relevant Act and can confirm what many suspect ie Wendy's 'intent' was irrelevant. There is a defence of "reasonable excuse" but no guidance on what a "reasonable excuse" would be. The bottom line is this:-
1. The donor is not a permissible donor. Uncontested fact.
2. Wendy accepted the donation. Uncontested fact.
3. The police have an independent duty to investigate complaints, and nowhere in the law does it say that the Electoral Commission have exclusive competence here. This point has been missed, deliberately or otherwise, by the press.
So, she should be investigated by the police (it won't take long, given that they have a confession) and subsequently prosecuted. The fact that the offence appears to be a minor one is relevant only to sentencing.
So, 'cybernats', wait for the Electoral Commission to bow to their Labour lords and masters, then write to your local Chief Constable, copying in the Lord Advocate.
If there is no prosecution, the fact that this is a representation of the people matter will give each Scottish voter the right to mount a judicial review of the decision not to prosecute.
If our criminal justice system is operational, Wendy is toast.
# 61, they say imitation is the best form of flattery so, Thank You!
However, in your headlong rush to defend the SNP you missed the real point of my post....
...a funding system which allows wealthy individuals to donate, will never be free of questions of impartiality. Rich people by & large are not altruistic (they wouldn't be rich otherwise). They donate to political parties to buy influence for their own agenda, whatever that may be. I'd like to see something different in place.
When did this weasel word 'impermissable' crawl in to the vocabulary?
Surely the word is 'illegal'?
What happened about the alleged breach of MSP registered interests by Wendy Alexander?
This was where she was said to have set up an organisation to "legally" accept donations that were then passed to her campaign without having to be decalared. However, they are said to be declarable in MSPs interests but were not.
#63 - Dave Boy, you're guessing wrong. The call was made weeks ago and the police have failed to act on the complaint.
SNP researcher Mark Hirst said he had lodged a complaint with Strathclyde Police.
Mr Hirst said: βI made the complaint as a private individual.
βThis is just really to start the process, because there seems to be some doubt that the Electoral Commission are going to proceed, which seems to me to be astonishing.β
There is much talk everywhere about Political Donations so here is an
idea.
The Electoral Commission sets up an office or offices and all
political donations MUST be channelled through them detailing who the
donor is and where the donation is intended to go to ..General
Election funding,Party funding,Leadership Election Funding and so on .
That would mean all donations were known and the information would be
made public at intervals ( that would be a requirement) or though
Information requests...there would be no anonymous donations) and if
it was found that other donations were made then the matter would be
illegal and immediately referred to the police .
The running costs could be paid for by the main Political parties or from a percentage of the donations.
How does that sound ?