As I understand it SSP strategist Alan McCombes was quick to declare Sheridan finished – an odd reaction to what should have been an opportunity to take a stand against the gutter press. The really bad strategy from McCombes though was not appreciating the significance of Sheridan stating his intention to go to court for defamation. As soon as Sheridan mentioned court McCombes should have informed comrades that the matter was under judicial consideration and therefore prohibited from public discussion elsewhere. McCombes knew Sheridan’s intentions before the pre-meet for the special executive meeting in November 2004, therefore no pre-meet and no special executive meeting should have been arranged, or if they were comrades should have been told that the matter was under judicial consideration and therefore prohibited from public discussion elsewhere.

Even if McCombes (and Sheridan) didn’t appreciate the need to separate the party from the gossip and the party from Sheridan’s private affairs, there were various other clever individuals around at that time who should’ve known better. Someone should’ve realised that the SSP as a party and the sex life of the convener should never have been allowed to mix. Producing a set of minutes about the convener’s sex life was amateurish in the extreme, yet six of the people present were supposed to be helping run the country.

Yeah I know!?! It was Sheridan that wanted to enter into a debate about it. In a civil action in the Edinburgh Court of Sessions. Where the press would, and did, have a feeding frenzy.

Joe wrote:
“SSP SAY PRIVATE LIVES ARE PRIVATE or SSP OPPOSE GUTTER PRESS OVER PRIVACY or SLURS WON’T STOP THE SSP or NO GOSSIP PLEASE, WE’RE SOCIALISTS.”

If Sheridan had been willing to go along with any of those responses I think people in the party would have been delighted. In fact people said things like this were suggested to him. But he wasn’t willing to do that. His strategy was to initiate a civil trial and commit perjury. He was a sitting MSP at the time, and Colin Fox was on one of the Justice Committees.

Which part of Stott’s pamphlet? It’s 17 pages long. Bit much for a book review imo. I haven’t read the book yet myself by the way. Have you?

Joe Wrote:
“If Sheridan strapped his audience down they still retain the option not to listen. No one can be forced to become a gossip. People choose to become a gossip.”

Ehhhhmmm….. Starting to worry here if you’re a little focused on some social science theorem you’re working on, or if you’re trolling.

Can you imagine the headlines, SSP SAY PRIVATE LIVES ARE PRIVATE or SSP OPPOSE GUTTER PRESS OVER PRIVACY or SLURS WON’T STOP THE SSP or NO GOSSIP PLEASE, WE’RE SOCIALISTS. All that kind of stuff appeals to the SSP’s core audience. How SSP strategist Alan McCombes thought getting into the gutter with the gutter press to be a good strategy I’ll never know. The arguments he makes in support of such a move don’t add up – see Philip Stott’s pamphlet linked above.

As I said before, keeping private conversations private is a simple matter and something any political strategist should understand. Even in everyday life there are a multitude of ways to avoid being dragged into gossip. If Sheridan strapped his audience down they still retain the option not to listen. No one can be forced to become a gossip. People choose to become a gossip.

Obviously though there’s a bigger mistake that was made. When he went to the sex club he invited a News of the World journalist to go with him. A sex columnist apparently. That’s the bit that makes me think he was a bit ‘off his head’. Problems with ego, and thinking he was untouchable or something. I think a few people knew he was off the rails long before this, and decided to get evidence to protect themselves and the party should he go interstellar ballistic and turn against everyone. His passion and determination for committing to the lie is quite breathtaking. Impressive even.

I joined about a year and a half before the first trial and never heard a peep about what was going on until just before the trial kicked off. There was an attempt to get him to drop it. Even an offer to pay any legal fees if he did.

This is hypothetical but had the union leader told his advisers he intended to go to court over the matter, I’m fairly sure his advisers would’ve told him not to make even a pre-prepared apology to the executive. The executive would’ve simply been advised that the matter was under judicial consideration and therefore prohibited from public discussion elsewhere.

In almost any scenario the union strategy would’ve been to say as little as possible to as few as possible whilst still saying something to end unhelpful gossip and speculation.

There are also ways to have private conversations without risking a contempt of court charge for refusing to repeat the conversation in court. Talking in hypothetical abstract terms, not producing detailed minutes, and having a lawyer present are fairly standard.

If the union leader had said that to everyone ah think peoples reactions would have been quite different.

It’s at http://issuu.com/sdaly/docs/riseandfallssp?mode=a_p

She also does not explain why so many SSP members felt compelled to go beyond just commenting on the EC meeting and added other new rumours about Sheridan. McCombes’ book goes much further, suggesting things about Sheridan’s life and personality (without any proof being offered)and even repeating accusations about drugs that he acknowledges he doesnt believe, yet still prints the accusations.

It is a hatchet job, coupled with an attempt to re-write McCombes’ own despicable role in this.

Liz also seems to think that only the people who remained in the SSP were vilified and called names. The split was not along feminsit lines, it was about the differing actions in the Sheridan case.

McCombes and his supporters tried to force Sheridan to drop the case, when that didnt happen they ended up in court, had gone too far to back out.

It was shameful, but this book is a new low for the Scottish left.

Thankfully, some members of both sides of that split are working together against the cuts, while McCombes and the old brigade continue to keep this going, younger SSP members have moved on.

Overall, this a poor effort from Liz, she should have done some research before writing on a subject she clearly knows only one side of.