Rules are rules
Bit more re the Wendy saga.
The Holyrood standards commissioner, Dr Jim Dyer, has now .
Was that a yawn I heard you stifle? If so, for shame. These help form the rules within which the commissioner operates in pursuing a complaint against an MSP.
It works like this. Complaint is passed to commissioner. Commissioner investigates, independently of parliament and its standards committee.
Say, during that investigation, commissioner comes across conduct which “would, if proved, constitute a criminal offence.â€
Green light
At that point, Dr Dyer must suspend his investigation - and MUST send a report to the fiscal, notifying the committee of his actions.
Commissioner’s investigation only resumes when the fiscal has finished work: either by concluding criminal proceedings, deciding that no such proceedings are warranted or by giving the Commissioner the green light.
Further, the commissioner and the standards committee are separate beasts. They do not work for each other.
Which matters how? Wendy Alexander received advice from the clerk to the committee that she did not require to declare her campaign donations as an individual MSP.
She was right to approach the clerk - and the advice duly gave her a reason not to publish.
However, that tells us nothing about the position of the commissioner - nor the line that he may adopt if and when a complaint is tabled.
Ongoing complaint
We may surmise that he agreed with the line taken by the committee clerk. But the clerk does not speak for him, nor he for the clerk.
Which leaves us where? That Dr Dyer’s referral of Wendy Alexander’s case was automatic, under rules drawn up by Holyrood. That there is an ongoing complaint against her.
That he concluded there was conduct which would, if proved, constitute a criminal offence.
Ms Alexander’s defence to that? She was advised otherwise by the clerk. (See yesterday’s blog entry: apologies for its length.)
Quite separately, we have the in accepting the donation from a Jersey-based businessman.
Ms Alexander’s defence to that? That she did not intentionally break the law. On which we await the verdict of the Electoral Commission.
I'm 
Comments
Brian
"That he concluded there was conduct which would, if proved, constitute a criminal offence.
Ms Alexander’s defence to that? She was advised otherwise by the clerk."
The problem with this, Brian, is that the focus of attention has moved onto whether she was advised wrongly or not.
However, if these donations were received for her election campaign (as is claimed) then they must have been received in August.
Yet she didn't even enquire about the need to declare these donations (or gifts) until November, as reported here:
It doesn't matter whether the advice given at that point was correct or not, it was 3 months later.
If Andy Kerr has been reported to the fiscal for being 4 days over the one month deadline for reporting gifts or donations (and he at least showed the responsibility to accept the blame), then what is Wnedy Alexander's excuse for being 2 months late before even seeking advice?
But when did she first approach the clerk for advice? Before or after the deadline for declaring?
Ignorantia juris non excusat.
Ignorance of the law excuses no one
a public policy holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content; that is, persons have presumed knowledge of the law.
Ms Alexander is the regulated donee, she has broken the law by accepting an illegal donation.Electoral laws were broken by unlawful actions and Ms Alexander is legally responsible, whether she pleads ignorance or insanity is irrelavent, she broke the law.
Wansanshoo.
Wendy would ask her brother for a job in London, but hiring relatives is not as easy as it used to be for some reason...
Wendy Alexander is crippling Scottish politics, she is unable to press the first minister in any capacity since she is on such dodgy ground.
She is also clearly power hungry, and reluctant to give up her office. Yet she has clearly broken the law, that is a fact. She is the worst kind of politician, she should resign immediately, let Scotland move forward, and put all this behind us.
Like members of the police force or others holding privileged positions in the realm of law making or law enforcement, the behaviour of elected representative must be beyond reproach, and those for whom this is not the case must expect to face the consequences. As already stated, ignorance is no defence, especially for one as exalted as Wendy, and one who could (if you were to believe her sycophantic following in the Scottish press) walk across the Firth of Forth if she so desired.
How is it that Labour in Scotland can be in such a mess? Welsh Labour have managed to form a coalition with Plaid Cymru and seem to be doing a great deal better. Could it be that Scottish Labour are being crippled by their hatred for the SNP? Wendy was a shoe-in to the job because Labour felt they needed to send out a signal that the party was united in defeat. If she has to go now a real election ought to follow for the leadership. But it will be closely scrutinised by all regarding donations. The 'toughing it out' message may be wearing thin but the alternative is equally bleak.
Do I detect Brian an attempt to say this is no big deal?
I confess I did not know the respective roles of the Standards Commissioner and the Clerks etc., so thanks for that Brian.
So it was not Dr. Dyer who gave WA advice and therefore his reporting of the matter to the PF in terms of HIS remit must be seen in that light.
Someone should tell Jim Sillars who's giving WA boost by demanding an apology from Dr. Dyer! He obviously doesn't read this blog...
Re Jim Sillars comments on Wendygate - I hardly think Wendy is deserving of an apology given that she was already past the disclosure time limit when she made her repeatedly mentioned enquiry. Especially as the referal to the PF was required by the rules. (Funny things Rules!)
However he does hit the nail on the head (as he so often does in many matters, being gifted in the common sense department) in highlighting the trivial nature of this transgression. There is NO WAY the Fiscal is going to proceed on this matter. Nor would I want him to. It would be a waste of time and money. It will, in time, go back to the Holyrood Standards Commissioner and he will issue a mild rebuke or even just a reminder on time limits.
That is not the main event - the soliciting of the illegal donation from Mr Green in the Channel Islands IS. This is exacerbated by attempting to conceal it's origin behind a local firm to which Green had no connection; and exacerbated further, in my opinion, by her ridiculous denials of the patent fact that she has been caught! - Or was that someone faking her signature on that personal letter of thanks to Green from her home address to his home address IN the Channel Islands??
As for claiming no knowledge of this Law:
1. Ignorance is no defence.
2. The Labour Party WROTE this Law purely and simply to try to cut off donations from Sir Sean Connery.
Arrogant??? - Yes, beyond belief!
Well done no. 1 (talorthane).
The issue here is the TIMING.
WHEN was advice asked for?
WHY the delay in asking for advice?
It does not matter if the advice subsequently received turned out to be incorrect. It appears that she was past the time limit even before she asked.
All concerned with the Edinburgh and Westminster Parliaments should refresh themselves (assuming they even know they exist in the first place) with the principals below, if they can't, don't or won't measure up to them then they should consider their positions and go. In my opinion, the disgraceful series of financial improprieties of the last few months in the UK display the contempt the 'political classes' hold for these principals and for the electorate in general.
The Seven Principals of Public Life
Selflessness
Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.
Integrity
Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisation that might influence them in the performance of their official duties.
Objectivity
In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.
Accountability
Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.
Openness
Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.
Honesty
Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interests.
Leadership
Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.
She broke the law, Jim Sillars says this is not a criminal offence, since when did he become a law lord? If Ms Alexander had an iota of sense and integrity she would have already gone.I suspect Big bad Broon is pulling the strings to avoid anything sticking to his shoe;he'll throw her to the wolves when it suits him.
Brian writes: 'Was that a yawn I heard you stifle?'
What a strange comment to make, Brian, given the relatively enormous number of posts you publish (and presumably receive) on Wendy Alexander-related stories compared to those on other, presumably more 'interesting' ones. It doesn't seem like many of your readers are yawning.
It's obvious that every media outlet except for the Sunday Herald wants this story to go away. Many have admitted as much. But if you journalists didn't get into the profession to fight corruption and abuse of power, why did you?
It's a sad state of affairs when we have to wait until next Sunday (and the output of one reporter) to find out the latest developments in this sorry tale. At least we can take comfort in the fact that the rest of our proud fourth estate are pursuing more important and interesting matters, like the fine detail of John Swinney's commute.
I read in a "National Newspaper" .that WA was late in declaring her received donation and the explanation given to the clerk about the donation was that it was a personal donation to her. This was later found to be untrue as it was a donation to her campaign it was then Dr Dyer took action. ?
Gregor #7, I think you've hit the nail on the head. We've already seen the Lib Dems practicaly become irrelevant as a party because of this. Like the Tories and the Greens, the Lib Dems could have forced through at least some aspects of their agenda but everytime the opportunity arises to do so, Nicol Stephen blows the chance because he just can't bring himself to cooperate with the SNP, not even over their common goal of scrapping the council tax and replacing it with a local income tax.
No wonder the pleas from Lib Dem party members for Clegg to come to Scotland and give them a new direction that's not tied to Wendy's apron strings is becoming increasingly louder. I'll be surprised if Stephen leads the Lib Dems into the next Holyrood election. Allowing him to do so should see the Lib Dem vote drop to the same irrelevancy as the party under Stephen has become.
#10,
I totally agree with you. It is the fact that Mr Green donated the money which angers. He isn't even Scottish,though thinks he can influence how we run our country. In whuch case, I would like to see money only donated from people of Scottish origin.
Looks to me that two heads should roll here. Wendy still has the problem with the Jersey donation, but surely the defence of Dr. Dyer is just sophistry. He gave wrong advice when asked, which could (though probably won't) lead to a criminal prosecution. What confidence will other MSPs have in him? Why didn't he check with the legal authorities first before giving advice?
I always assumed that the wise old civil servants really ran Scotland - not the numpties of the Labour Party who did as they were told. But now it turns out the civil servants are numpties too! Dear oh dear! Surely it's time to restore direct rule from Westminster.
mmm Brian, that was almost interesting, is she getting the bullet or not?
Aha,
The plot thickens!!
Wendy now has one J Sillars opining some support for her in her precidament (and no that's not because she has WEE DUGGIE as a family member!)so we are left to question: exactly why??
Could it just be that the SNP's best secret weapon is none other than Wendy??
So long as Wendy is 'leader'of the Labour Party of Westminster in Scotland, support for the SNP will just rise and rise!!
Well done Jim - marvellous stuff!!
Electoral Commission rules on donations state as follows:
Page 3 Section1.2
Under schedule 7 of PPERA,regulated donees can only accept a donation of more than £200 made to them in connection with their political activities if it is from a ''permissable donor''.
Page 14 Section 4.3
It is the legal responsibility of a regulated donee, when receiving a donation to take all reasonable steps forthwith to satisfy themselves that the source of a donation is permissible within the relevant PPERA rules.If a donation is received from an impermissible source,it must be returned within 30 days, after this time,It is a CRIMINAL OFFENCE to retain the donation,with a potential penalty of a fine and up to one year in prison.
Yes Wendy gal, you tough it out with your Labour cronies,in the interim we shall follow First Minister Salmond to the promised land.
Wansanshoo.
When i read through all these comments it draws me to the conclusion that we should close down parliament as its obvious that all our intelligent poloticians who are scottish serve at Westminister, the ones we do have at Hollyrood are only glorified councillors who could not make a decision that makes any sense. UpThe Union
i find it thoroughly depressing that this is the highlight of scottish politics.
Comment 22 - Robert Logan McDonald - Are you Alistair Darling ? Do I get a prize ?
Brown,Darling,Browne,Alexander -You know the guys who gave us Iraq, Trident, Nuclear danger, Northern Rock and Army morale at an all time low - You honestly think these poltroons are better at anything than the impressive Scottish Government?
I'll give you that Labour are much better at sleaze.
Stop making it up - most people pity you already !
I think a more fundamental issue has come to the fore with all the scandal surrounding donations. Some MPs and MSPs seem to display disrespect for the public aka taxpayer, dare I say even contempt? Politicians are expected by the electorate to be loyal, representative servants to the electorate who will pass final judgement and I think we are entitled to answers in the donations affair and others and bring those responsible to account. Wendy Alexander's reference to the advice she was given over the donations, reminds me of the question a primary teacher would ask when questioning a misdemeanour and was informed, "Miss, he told me to do it" to which she would reply, "If he told you to jump off the Forth Bridge, would you do it?". It seems Labour in particular have long forgotten the 13 year and 18 year opposition sentences passed on them by the electorate in past times. By the laws of probability, the next sentence will be even longer!
None of your political junkies are yawning Brian but we would be forgiven if this elongated process were not designed to send the electorate to sleep at which point Wendy is given a quiet rebuke.
Gurugordon @ no 6 does have a strong point when he mentions that those in authority seem to have an easier time of it with the law than ordinary citizens.
i don't want to rub salt into the wounds, but i couldn't help noticing in Wendy's register of contributions that tesco gives her cash. It was reported on the bbc today that the "top spin doctor" in scottish labour is leaving to join........go on, have a guess....
...every li££le helps!
#21
Even if it is taken to court I dont see the judge doing anything except handing out a suspended sentence of light fine.
Also where could you find 13 members of the public that would not be filled with people wanting to stick one to
a Alex Salmond - Not Guilty
B Labour
C Gordon Brown
Labour, LibDem and the Tories in Scotland have been running scared of the SNP for too long. They will obviously do anything to prevent the success of the Scottish Parliament under the stewardship of the SNP. They CANNOT act in the Scottish interest as this will only further the SNP cause.
They should all work together FOR THE SCOTTISH PEOPLE, since that is the ultimate requirement of their position. The conundrum there (for the 'opposition') is that this will always give the SNP more ground.
Wendy is a Puppet, Nicol is a Muppet, and Annabel is probably a good girl but in the wrong team. If they all stood by their supposed principles then Alex could do even more good more quickly with all-round support on common issues. Instead, we have dogged anti-SNP rhetoric no matter what the issue is.
Do they think the Scottish people are daft as brushes???
We see through it.....
Wendy couldn't see a Highland Cow on a Toffee Bar.
From the automatic referral by the Standards Commissioner to the Procurator-Fiscal at the weekend of Andy Kerr's late (by 4 days) registration of a gift in the Parliamentary Register of Interests it would appear that even a trivial administrative error must result in a criminal investigation. If opposition and media are going to call for the immediate resignation of any minister referred to the PF under such circumstances I suspect the public are going to become even more cynical and bored.
wendy alexander should have stepped aside whilst this investigation goes on, whether she feels guilty or not. her smug smile should be taken out of holyrood and she should not be let back in until she is cleared... or more hopefully when she loses her job if found guilty. she is clinging onto her power because she knows that if she steps aside, she will lose it. this is just one more ridiculous crime piled on top of the massive mountain that is politics and I will bet my hind teeth that nothing will come of it purely because of her position. the premise that nobody is above the law will once again fail and she will probably get off scot free (excuse the pun) even if found guilty.
* Robert Logan McDonald wrote:
When i read through all these comments it draws me to the conclusion that we should close down parliament as its obvious that all our intelligent poloticians who are scottish serve at Westminister"
Intelligent politicians ay Westminster???
Bean??
Des Browne??
Alexander??
Your having a laugh, surely??
Number 22...
Rephrase that, the only unionist politicians who have a smattering of intelligence work at westminster.
Us lucky Nats have a World Statesman as a leader and one of the brightest minds as a deputy.In our own parliement.
Its not our fault that the fib dums and nulab are lacking vision ,imagination and integrity.
Alba gu brath
( and is it really a bright idea of Alistair Darling to get rid of Scottish Banknotes - hardly a vote winner is it!!!!!)
Robert Logan McDonald's remarks are pretty accurate in regards to one party in particular. A review of recent events clearly shows this.
It is of course the responsibility of the electorate to vote out such unintelligent and incoherent glorified councillors and replace them with more competent representatives. If I fitted that description, I would not look forward to the judgement of the voters. But then again, if I was so far adrift of reality, I might not realise that it actually applied to me.
no.22
not even the most ardent supporter
of the labour little "DIFICULTIES"
CAN GET AWAY WITH BLAMING ALL OTHERS
IN HOLLYHOOD.yes i agree UP the union,UP THE CREEK, if you are one of its supporters,no wonder its a
mess!!WE CANT have people cheating,
lying, covering up,at all levels.
and dismiss it (just like that)
behave yourself.
Wendy Alexander finds herself in a similar position as did one Henry Mcleish; prolonged protestations of innocence providing the ‘no smoke without fire’ prosecution for her enemies both within and without the Labour Party.
Now what happened when Henry was forced out? Oh no, Wendy you must stay!
WHATS GOING TO HAPPEN IS THAT WITH SO MANY * SNOUTS IN THE COOKIE JAR*
AT BOTH HOLYROOD & westminster some bright spark(K livingston or our boris) will say lets draw a line under this as *lessons have been learned* and were all snow white now
or pay the westminster crowd with scots POUND NOTES(THEY ARE NOT WORTH A DAMM ARE THEY JIMMY?????
THE USA ELECTIONS ARE BEGINING TO LOOK
OVER THE TOP LADS IT CAN ONLY GET WORSE
RE: Wendy Alexander:
Would I trust this person to be the First Minister of Scotland?
Would I trust this person to run a welk store?
Do I trust this person?
No!
#17, if we pursue your logic, what next? Only people of Scottish origin allowed to vote? Narrow minded and dangerous.
#20, are you suggesting an SNP member lied to the media and the public, for political advantage??
Robert Logan McDonald wrote:
When i read through all these comments it draws me to the conclusion that we should close down parliament as its obvious that all our intelligent poloticians who are scottish serve at Westminister.
--------------------
The above comment has to be the biggest joke ever. Its amazing that this guy can simply pass off all the Wstminster donation scandals and other assorted nonsense simply because its Westminster... that's ok then.
Intelligent politicians? Des Browne? Douglas Alexander? Get real.
This kind of warped, blinkered attitude reminds me of the critics who tried to undermine devolution by using the Holyrood building fiasco as an example of how we couldnt be trusted to run our own affairs.
As if Westminster does any better - The Millenium Dome anyone? The most useless building in history - costing over a £1000 million - a Westminster decision which we all paid for. At least the Scottish Parliament serves a purpose.
What happened to serious investigative journalism ? With the exception of Paul Hutcheon nobody is asking Wendy and her team any difficult questions. Everybody seems happy to indulge in innuendo and speculation rather than get at the facts. I cannot believe that Labour continue to get away with putting up Jackie Baillie for interview repeating time and again the mantra that Wendy didnt do anything intentionally wrong and it was all aterrible accident that an impermissible donation was accepted whilst trying to smear politicians from every other party with her ridiculous claims. Please , please ,please can we have a serious interviewer to nail these guys to the wall until they give a straight answer to a straight question . Brian its time you looked for answers rather than writing this guff. Wendy has hidden behind the EC for long enough - its time this was dealt with once and for all
The more obvious, and more accurate conclusion, is that a Scottish politician who is effective, honest and not self-serving is unlikely to be in the Labour Party!
Saor Alba!
RE: Wendy Alenander -
Would I trust this person to be Scotland's first minister?
Would I thrust this person to run a welk stall?
Would I trust this person?
Do I trust Scottish Labour?
Answer - NO!
If Wendy Alexander does not face procecution for at least one of these "oversights" then the law in Scotland will have to be changed to accomodate everyone who pleads that they did not unintentionally break the law. The preceedent will have been set by Ms Alexander. Time the commission reported her to the relevant authorities and the Parliament got back to doing the work for which it was elected.
If Wendy Alexander does not face procecution for at least one of these "oversights" then the law in Scotland will have to be changed to accomodate everyone who pleads that they did not unintentionally break the law. The preceedent will have been set by Ms Alexander. Time the commission reported her to the relevant authorities and the Parliament got back to doing the work for which it was elected.
Why did the Police not instigate an investigation at the start os this saga? Answer; they claimed there was a protocol between ACPOS (Association of Chief Police Officers of Scotland) and the Crown Office which dictated, it was claimed, that complaints of this nature have to be dealt with the electoral commission who, if they decide the law has been broken refer it to the Crown Office who then allocate it to the relevant police force. (Source: Dep Chief Constable, Strathclyde Police, letter 14th Dec 2007, as referred to on Â鶹ԼÅÄ Newsnight Scotland, Jan 2008). Trouble for Wendy and indeed for Strathclyde Police is that ACPOS Secretariat have just confirmed no such protocol exists.
Furthermore in a parliamentary answer today (Tuesday) the Justice Secretary confirms police forces have a statutory duty to investigate criminality following breaches of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act (referred to as Electoral law). So far Strathclyde Police have failed to fulfil their statutory duties under the Police Act, the legislation which directs how they will operate, regardless of protocols which may or may not exist.
Whatever the Electoral Commission rule tomorrow, Strathclyde Police must and are required to investigate. That is their legal duty under law. We have a public admission by Wendy's team that the law has been broken and a formal technical complaint with police, that I lodged.
Wendy is a long way from being out of the woods, even after the predicted slap on the wrist from the Electoral Commission tomorrow.
Whilst most respondants pick up on the timing issue regarding declaration surely the alleged ignorance is the big question. I have been involved in elections both in the background and on one occassion as the election agent and can tell you that the rules and regulations are stressed time and time again from party HQ. Political parties carry out training courses for those responsible for the paperwork and the accounting of expenses and I find it almost unbeleivable that a person with the experience of WA or her support team could get themselves into such a mess.
Brian, I am grateful for the amendment to #13.
Craig.
#17
Scottish origin?
So someone who has lived in Scotland all their life but is born to English parents is not allowed to donate. qualify to vote = qualify to donate. Period
Viva Paul Hutcheon!
Viva Ian MacWhirter!
Viva Ian Bell!
Journalists with integrity!
What are the rest playing at?
I am deeply disappointed in the media , they cover , obscure and twist the truth.
They use weasel words such as impermissable when they mean illegal and corrupt.Very New Labour ,very Tony and Gordon.
We have had the Trump farce up to our elbows,we have had an attempt at an Aviemore farce both have left egg on the media and the opposition but my! how quiet the media has been about the Wendy saga.
And you are still trying to shove it under the carpet!
#50
Spot on Dorothy in commending Messrs Hutcheon, MacWhirter and Bell. As you say, journalists with integrity. The Sunday Herald is clearly head and shoulders above the rest of the pack and has acheived the brilliance that was (so briefly) the Sunday Standard. It was a sorry time between the two when I had to read other Sundays.
And Brian - I'm not yawning - I love this politics, democracy and stuff. And yes I do stay up all night on Election Nights.
If was badly advised by my lawyer that would not be recognised by the courts as a defence. Surely the same applies to Wendy Alexander. Yes she may well have been badly advised and have cause for complaint but she is still guilty.
You may recall a song Brian (I do but I can't remember the band) "When will they ever learn".
Brian- the EC report seems at best perverse. Someone somewhere should consider a judicial review.
As a senior Â鶹ԼÅÄ commentator of Scottish Politics, you are being disrespectful to the people regarding your reports on this matter.
You frequently remind us that Mrs Alexander did not intentionally break the Law. But you never point out that IGNORANCE is not a defence.
Also yourself and others have failed to explain why the police must await the decision of the Electoral Commission before they decide on any action.