The TommyGate Affair -- Smell The Red Leather Glove

We are writing as a direct result of the article, ‘Galloway to team up with Sheridan for assault on Labour seats in Holyrood’, in the Mail on Sunday (Scottish edition, December 5). Other mainstream newspapers in Scotland have also followed up on this article.

In this article, George Galloway, a prominent Respect spokesperson and member of the Respect officers’ group, is directly reported as saying:

In addition the report attributes to George Galloway but without directly quoting him:

George Galloway’s implied premise - that Tommy Sheridan’s resignation as party convenor has something to do with the party’s handling of an extra-marital allegation that is now subject to legal action - is simply wrong. Many media commentators have also wrongly assumed this premise to be fact and have also engaged in negative speculation. To some extent it was predictable that the enemies of socialism would use this opportunity to attack the SSP. However, it is extremely disappointing that George Galloway should choose to use the confusion in the media to actively promote divisions in the SSP and the left in Scotland. He did not even seek the views of the SSP before talking to the Mail on Sunday.

We enclose, for your information, a statement that was overwhelmingly agreed, with the active backing of Tommy Sheridan, at the SSP national council meeting the previous weekend (Saturday November 27) and a press statement from Tommy Sheridan issued after the meeting [see Weekly Worker December 2 - ed]. It had become apparent in the days before this meeting that the SSP had been the victim of a malicious and systematic campaign to provide the media with misinformation designed to sow confusion and division around issues concerned with Tommy Sheridan’s resignation as party convenor. The NC meeting heard a detailed report of the events of the previous weeks. The SSP were able to draw a line under the issue and sought to move forward in a positive and united fashion to campaign for troops out of Iraq, for equality, peace and socialism.

Tommy Sheridan had also published an article in the Morning Star on December 3, where he stated:

Especially in these circumstances, it was very disappointing to read the ill informed and inaccurate article in the Mail on Sunday (December 5), largely based on quotes from George Galloway. This article is clearly an attempt to break down the impressive left unity that has been achieved in Scotland in recent years and, in particular, to try to rubbish the Scottish Socialist Party. The general tone and content of George Galloway’s descriptions of our party’s executive and national council are also dismissive and even contemptuous of the SSP. His choice of language in the article is barely distinguishable from the way that the right wing attempts to caricature SSP activists (and probably also Respect activists).
The SSP has already stood on a national all-Scotland basis five times in five years and is again preparing for a nationwide challenge at the Westminster election next year. The SSP has always been supportive of Respect, seeking to develop positive links. Tommy Sheridan, representing the party, has spoken at several Respect meetings. The SSP cooperated to enable a Respect party political broadcast to be screened throughout Britain for the Euro elections this year, even although Respect does not operate in Scotland and even although we did not support Respect standing against Forward Wales.

We had thought we had a mutual agreement, where we recognise that Respect organises in England and the SSP in Scotland. We have sought to build links based on solidarity and mutual respect. We have congratulated Respect on every electoral advance made in England. It is therefore extremely disappointing that George Galloway is now reported as saying that Respect has already been considering standing in Scotland at the next elections for the Scottish parliament.

We would be grateful if you could provide the SSP members with an explanation of where Respect stands in relation to George Galloway’s comments. Are George Galloway’s reported comments about Respect considering standing in Scottish elections accurate? Do George Galloway’s comments about the SSP represent the views of Respect or are they his personal views?

If these comments are George Galloway’s personal views, we appreciate that Respect may not necessarily be responsible for them. Nevertheless, it would help clarify the position of Respect towards the SSP if you could provide us with a clear statement of your position with regard to standing in elections in Scotland now or at any time in the future.

In particular, we would appreciate a straightforward written statement which made it clear whether or not Respect recognises that in Scotland there is a separate and distinct party for socialists to join, the SSP, and whether or not Respect has any plans to organise in Scotland in the future. It would be helpful if you give us a categorical assurance that you will not organise nor stand in elections in Scotland at any time in the future.

In the past we have pointed out that the Respect entry on the electoral commission website states it will contest elections in England, Scotland and Wales. If you have no intention of standing in elections in Scotland, could you please now quickly arrange with the electoral commission for the reference to Respect standing in elections in Scotland to be removed from their public website?

Galloway reveals SWP’s hand in Scotland

Peter Manson examines the latest developments in Scotland and the growing tensions between the SWP and SSP

Taking as his cue the turmoil in the Scottish Socialist Party following the forced resignation of Tommy Sheridan as convenor, George Galloway has sought to raise the temperature further. He has suggested that some kind of Galloway-Respect-Sheridan alliance is in the offing to contest the 2007 elections to the Scottish parliament in opposition to a rump SSP.

Under the headline, ‘Galloway to team up with Sheridan for assault on Labour seats at Holyrood’, the Scottish version of the Mail on Sunday claims: “Mr Galloway believes the recent implosion of the SSP, coupled with its treatment of Mr Sheridan over newspaper allegations, has created a crucial opening for his anti-war party, Respect, in the 2007 Holyrood elections” (December 5).

The paper is, of course, referring to the plethora of ‘revelations’ concerning comrade Sheridan’s private life that have featured heavily in the sensationalist press in Scotland. The SSP leadership was panicked into demanding Tommy’s resignation when he refused to handle the allegations in the way the executive wanted.

Comrade Galloway is quoted as saying: “Tommy is still fighting his corner in the SSP, but I fear he will have to accept they have betrayed him and move on. The Scottish Socialist Party has made a catastrophic blunder. It is my estimation that much more than half, maybe even much more than three-quarters, who voted for them did so because of Tommy Sheridan. The idea that these unknown Trotskyite apparatchiks who have done him down are going to get the same kind of vote that they did when led by Sheridan seems to me inherently improbable. These people who have done him down are not fit to tie his shoelaces.”

Having previously stated that he would leave behind Scottish politics, comrade Galloway has now apparently changed his mind: “I would certainly like to contend in Glasgow for the Scottish parliament elections. Tommy and I would be a great double act, a dream ticket, and people would vote for us. I am certain that together we could set the cat among the pigeons.”

Some might suggest that comrade Galloway has let his libel victory against The Daily Telegraph go to his head. Others might say that he has become caught up in a rather extreme case of wishful thinking. After all there are a number of problems in the way of his Galloway-Sheridan-Respect “dream ticket”, to put it mildly.

Firstly, comrade Sheridan, along with the rest of the leadership, has helped take the SSP to the point where it has collapsed into full-blown Scottish nationalism and therefore cannot be properly regarded as socialist, except in name only. But what of George Galloway and Respect? Through its SWP majority, and without a murmur of protest from comrade Galloway, Respect’s conference in October agreed to bureaucratically exclude the communist minority and then proceeded to vote down the principles of republicanism, a workers’ representative receiving a skilled worker’s wage, abortion on demand, open borders, secularism … and working class socialism.

Respect is therefore a left populist formation led by right-moving centrists who preach democracy but practise something altogether different and who brook not the slightest opposition from the left. Such is their control-freakery, such is their fear. The chances of this sorry organisation taking off are slim to zero. Why on earth would comrade Sheridan want to help replicate such an outfit in Scotland?

Secondly, does comrade Galloway really think that the SSP is as good as dead without Sheridan as convenor? It seems he does. Galloway told the Mail on Sunday two weeks earlier that the other five SSP MSPs had been “dragged into Holyrood clinging to Tommy’s coat tails and wouldn’t have got a hundred votes without his imprimatur” (November 21). Yet, while comrade Sheridan may well take a back seat for the next year or so, he is clearly expecting to stage a comeback in time for the Scottish parliament elections - assuming his libel action against the News of the World is successfully fought. In the December 5 press release issued by the SSP, Sheridan is quoted as saying: “I don’t know why George is raising this idea. I am absolutely committed to the Scottish Socialist Party and expect to be a leading candidate for the party in the 2007 Holyrood election.”

Thirdly - given that Sheridan is not about to lead a split from the SSP and, in spite of the crisis the party is currently undergoing, it does not seem to be on the point of collapse - who does George think will be his foot soldiers in Scotland?

Comrade Galloway is certainly right about one thing though: he definitely has “set the cat among the pigeons”. The SSP’s reaction has been one of outrage, accusing him of “coming to the aid of New Labour by threatening to split the left vote in Scotland” (press release, December 5).

Since then the leadership has taken the opportunity to launch a counteroffensive against what it sees as encroachment upon its territory. The SSP has laid its cards on the table in Scottish Socialist Voice: “Over the past three years, the SSP has been supportive of George Galloway in his battles with Blair and the New Labour hierarchy over the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have never hidden our differences with George on a range of issues, including Scottish independence, which he vehemently opposes, and abortion rights, which he also opposes. The SSP also insists that parliamentary candidates pledge to live on no more than the average wage of a skilled worker - a policy which George Galloway has always resisted, both within the Labour Party and within Respect.

“Nonetheless, despite our disagreements, the SSP supported George’s moves to form a broad, leftwing, anti-war party in England after his expulsion from New Labour in 2003. However, our backing for Respect - and for other initiatives to create a working class socialist alternative to New Labour south of the border - has been based on a clear recognition that there is already a united socialist party in Scotland” (Scottish Socialist Voice December 9).

In addition SSP national secretary Allan Green has penned a letter to Respect (to which comrade Sheridan has added his name) demanding that the coalition distances itself from Galloway’s comments and gives a commitment to stay out of Scotland (see opposite). Comrade Galloway’s office informed the Weekly Worker that the MP was expressing his “personal opinion”, not that of Respect, in the Mail on Sunday article.

Why did Tommy go?

Everybody has long since dropped the pretence that comrade Sheridan quit in order to support his wife, Gail, in a difficult pregnancy and be a good father to their first child when it is born. Tommy himself now admits things were rather more complicated: it was a “combination of private and family circumstances” that caused him to quit (Morning Star December 3).

We have suggested that his departure was forced and resulted from an outbreak of moralistic panic on the SSP’s executive. This was brought on by the impending ‘scandal’ that was about to break: within days of the resignation announcement the News of the World in Scotland filled its first five pages with lurid details of what it claimed were Tommy’s sexual exploits.

Supposedly we were wrong. At least according to Scottish Socialist Voice: “Unfortunately, George Galloway has been duped into believing that the SSP executive ditched Tommy Sheridan over an extra-marital affair. Nor is he alone. Several London-based newspapers, including Socialist Worker and The Socialist, appear to have made the same mistake. The Socialist, for example, claims that the SSP executive took action over ‘unproven tabloid allegations’.

“The SSP executive has never expressed an opinion on ‘unproven allegations’ - including the allegations that appeared in the News of the World on November 14. The discussions that did take place between Tommy and the SSP executive were based, not on ‘unproven tabloid allegations’, but on undisputed facts” (December 9).

True, the SSP executive has passed no formal resolution on ‘unproven allegations’. So SSV is using a deliberately evasive formulation to hide the simple truth that Tommy Sheridan was told to go. This now appears to be “undisputed”, and the only reason we know of why that happened was the coming press scandal.

We are not interested in comrade Sheridan’s private life. That is his concern and the concern of those close to him. Apart from wishing him and his wife well, that is the end of it for us. What worries us, though, is who exactly is setting the agenda in the SSP? Is it the Murdoch press and behind it the dark hand of the secret state? This is not a question that should be irresponsibly brushed aside.

The SSP’s executive leant on comrade Sheridan because he would not agree to either tell everything or (the preferred option) refuse altogether to comment on allegations about his private life. Most of all, the EC insisted he should steer clear of the courts - a course of action that could see more embarrassing claims come to light and even result in the SSP’s ‘main spokesperson’ being dubbed a liar.

But comrade Sheridan insisted on initiating libel proceedings. He writes: “… court action … is not always the best response, but, in my opinion, is for me. I value the opinion of those who caution against entering the lion’s den against the evil Murdoch empire, in unfamiliar territory for socialists. The weight of the establishment definitely sides with the rich and powerful in court cases. Other smears may even be thrown at me. I demand the right to deal with them in my own way” (Morning Star December 3).

Comrade Sheridan concludes that the “combination of private and family circumstances” to which he refers “makes the decision of our party’s executive committee to accept my letter of resignation absolutely correct”. This peculiar and deliberately cryptic phrasing is aimed (unsuccessfully) at concealing the fact that it was the EC that proposed Tommy’s resignation in the first place. Surely, if it had been entirely voluntary, it would have been Tommy’s own “decision” that would have been called into question more than that of the EC.

The executive has not denied that the convenor agreed to submit his resignation as a result of the pressure from the leadership itself, and comrade Sheridan, it seems, is continuing to go along with the agreed formula. The letter to Respect states: “It had become apparent in the days before [the November 27 national council which voted to accept the forced resignation] that the SSP had been the victim of a malicious and systematic campaign to provide the media with misinformation designed to sow confusion and division around issues concerned with Tommy Sheridan’s resignation as party convenor.”

The Green-Sheridan letter makes no attempt to clear up this “confusion”. Nor does it hint at who was responsible for the “malicious and systematic campaign” and how it could have been laid to rest.

Role of SWP

The part played by the Socialist Worker platform, the Socialist Workers Party in Scotland, has been the subject of much speculation and controversy within the SSP.

Chris Bambery, commenting in Socialist Worker on comrade Sheridan’s case, writes: “… the SSP leadership panicked, and urged Tommy’s resignation. That panic derives from seeing things too much in terms of media perceptions rather than how grassroots party supporters view things” (December 4).
In my opinion, this is a pretty accurate assessment. Nobody is suggesting that the EC itself was pursuing a full-blown witch-hunt against Tommy over what he is supposed to have done. The fear expressed in the Weekly Worker is that the comrades succumbed to the presbyterian moralism still prevalent throughout much of Scottish society and fell for what could be an MI5 sting.

Comrade Bambery should be well informed about EC discussions and decisions. The SW platform has three members sitting on the SSP executive: Mike Gonzales, Pat Smith and Charlotte Ahmed. I believe Pat Smith and one of the other two were present at the November 9 EC meeting (which, incidentally, voted unanimously for comrade Sheridan to resign). At least two were at the November 24 EC meeting which - again unanimously - endorsed Tommy’s resignation and issued the statement put to the November 27 special meeting of the national council.

Comrade Bambery’s comments are clearly intended not only as a criticism of the SSP executive, but of his own comrades as well. This was demonstrated at the November 27 NC meeting, where SW platform comrades strongly opposed and voted as a bloc against the executive statement. The line had been transmitted down from the SWP leadership.

Subsequently, the SW platform has come under sustained attack within the SSP - particularly since the publication of the Mail on Sunday article containing Galloway’s comments. As the main force in Respect, the SWP is naturally assumed to be in cahoots with George in a “London-based” plot to lead a breakaway. The SSP’s ultra-nationalists have resumed their long-running anti-SWP campaign with a vengeance, dubbing the platform a “fifth column” and an agent of the “Brit left” (for the likes of the Scottish Republican Socialist Movement, this is almost as bad as being an agent of the British state).

The ultra-nationalists are not entirely wrong. Look at Bambery’s concluding paragraph: “Last June in the European elections the SSP slipped further behind the Greens in the polls. Now there are voices in the party saying people won’t be interested in next year’s Westminster election. Yet this election can bring pro-war Labour MPs to book over Iraq. The SSP needs to ensure it is back in pole position as the radical voice of Scotland” (my emphasis Socialist Worker December 4).

Pregnant words. Obviously Bambery’s formulation leaves the door wide open for the SWP to sadly turn round and criticise the SSP at some point in the near future the for not putting itself “back in pole position as the radical voice of Scotland”.

Everyone knows that the SWP’s marriage with the SSP is one of convenience. It is neither a love match nor a meeting of minds. The SWP dislikes the SSP’s left nationalism. The problem is that it wants to replace or split the SSP through Respect and that in order to promote its narrow interests as a bureaucratic centralist sect.

John Rees will certainly have recognised a golden opportunity with comrade Sheridan’s forced resignation. As I have pointed out, Tommy is still more familiar to voters in Scotland than his party. By championing Sheridan, by standing alongside him in the closest solidarity, by associating the SWP with him, comrade Rees calculates that one day soon he can capture what he rightly sees as a key figure in Scottish politics.

Sheridan will be assiduously and gently courted over the next year or two. That is why the SW platform’s executive members were given such a verbal doing over. Their blundering tactical ineptitude could have ruined everything.

What we got from George Galloway in the Mail on Sunday is nothing but a bastardised version of this strategy. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that Galloway’s remarks have caused embarrassment for some SW platform comrades. A few of them have even distanced themselves from the SWP position, suggesting, for example, that comrade Bambery’s article was ‘badly expressed’.

Unity

MSP Colin Fox has emerged as the leadership’s preferred candidate to take over as convenor. Tommy Sheridan himself has virtually anointed him as his successor. In his Morning Star article Tommy mentions his candidature seemingly as an aside: “My socialist colleague in parliament, Colin Fox, recently announced his intention to seek election to the convenor’s post I have vacated. He said: ‘The best days of the SSP are ahead of us, not behind us.’ He is absolutely right” (December 3).

This passage is also quoted in the Green-Sheridan letter to Respect and in internal SSP mailings, so clearly it is not just Tommy who thinks comrade Fox is the best man for the job. However, he does not meet with the approval of all sections of the membership. For some he is just not nationalist enough. While, like all the main SSP leaders, he campaigns around the SSP’s principal slogan, an “independent socialist Scotland”, according to the ultras, he fails to demand “independence” as a stand-alone (increasingly “independence and socialism” is being used interchangeably in party statements with “independent socialist Scotland”).

The point is that, since the last conference, SSP policy is now in reality independence first, ‘socialism’ later. On the one hand, comrades like Scottish Socialist Voice columnist Kevin Williamson go on about a “positive embracing of a Scottish identity”, a “shared national historiography” and the need to adopt “the icons and symbolism” of “Scottish resistance to British rule” yet, on the other hand, deny this has anything to do with nationalism.

The leadership is hoping that, whoever the new convenor is, the controversy of the past weeks can be left behind. So Tommy states: “People outside our ranks tried to get us to fight each other. Only the bosses and the ruling class benefit when socialists fight among themselves. We are too determined in our opposition to their illegal wars and capitalist-inspired poverty to fight each other.” (Morning Star December 3).

Comrades Green and Sheridan, in their joint letter to Respect, similarly imply that the furore over the leadership crisis is now a thing of the past: “The SSP were able to draw a line under the issue and sought to move forward in a positive and united fashion to campaign for troops out of Iraq, for equality, peace and socialism.”

What is being posed is a false and hypocritical unity. False, because it is achieved through gagging orders and claims of near unanimity, along with the suppression of informed discussion. Hypocritical, because it is for Scotland only. The “London-based” left can look after England (and, at a push, Wales) but what goes on north of the border is the concern of the SSP alone.

The notion that there is a single UK state that can only be defeated on the basis of all-Britain working class unity at the highest level - most importantly through a single democratic centralist party, uniting the communists and revolutionary socialists of Scotland, England and Wales - is an anathema for the SSP leadership.

In the wake of the resignation of Tommy Sheridan, some were forecasting the end of the Scottish Socialist Party.
Saturday's special National Council meeting scotched the rumours of our imminent demise and underlined the SSP membership's commitment to the fight against poverty and war.
Nearly 200 delegates and observers attended the meeting, which was designed to involve SSP members in as full a discussion as possible of the events of the last few weeks.
The debate was long, but called resoundingly for unity.
Delegates voted overwhelmingly, by 85 to 20, to support the decision made by the Executive Committee regarding Tommy's resignation.
A further vote declared support for the EC's statement, which condemned rumours in the media of a leadership coup.
It also restated our unity in opposition to war and racism, and in the cause of an independent, socialist Scotland.
While Tommy Sheridan is no longer the SSP's national spokesperson, he is still part of our dynamic team of MSPs and will continue to work at the heart of the Scottish Socialist Party.
He took part in Saturday's meeting, and afterwards issued a press release, "wholeheartedly" supporting the agreed statement.
He added:
"The Scottish Socialist Party has today showed great maturity in reaching a unified position on the way forward.

'Cheerio Cheerio Cheerio'

Principle and action
"I would like to take this opportunity to confirm that my resignation as party convenor has nothing at all to do with internal power struggles.
"There is not and never has been any internal squabbles or back-biting about a leadership challenge.
"We are a party of principle and action.
"We have drawn a line under these internal deliberations.
"I will now work alongside the other party MSPs and the wider party membership to campaign for justice, equality, peace and socialism."
This has been a difficult time for the Scottish Socialist Party.
But the cackling media which gathered to pick over our party's carcass will have to look elsewhere for scraps.
We have not hidden ourselves away over the last few weeks - branches have continued their stalls and public meetings, and our banner has been held high on anti-war and anti-racism demos.
But we're in a stronger position now to confirm our reputation amongst supporters as an open, democratic and above all campaigning party.
Our challenge for next year's general election begins now, and meetings are being called across the country to select candidates.
We are emerging from a crisis intact and together, despite the best efforts of some.
It might be December, but the Voice predicts some sunny skies ahead for the Scottish Socialist Party.
Members will decide on convenor's post
Discussions are ongoing in the Scottish Socialist Party regarding the vacant post of convenor.
The next National Council meeting on 12 December will decide how to proceed - do we want to keep the position as it is, change it so we have more than one convenor or scrap it altogether?
Any changes to the post will have to be ratified at the party's conference in February.
In the meantime, SSP branches can nominate any SSP member as convenor and Colin Fox this week announced he'd be willing to accept nominations. He told the Voice: "Saturday's National Council decision to support the Executive Committee over its handling of Tommy Sheridan's resignation means we can move forward now as a party to focus on promoting our political priorities one again.
"I informed the National Council that I would accept nomination for the vacant post of party convenor.
"My announcement was made for two reasons.
"First because I believe it can assist in that refocus. And second because I wanted to tell the party membership of my decision firsthand.
"Since I made up my mind to stand last week, I have taken the opportunity to speak to all five of my fellow MSPs, the wider parliamentary team and the full Executive Committee.
"It was equally important for me to be able to inform the National Council, and through them the wider party.
"My intention throughout was to ensure my decision went directly to SSP members and avoid the news arriving via the mass media first.
"I look forward to engaging in the discussions and debates we have ahead of us on this issue. I feel sure that the debate will be conducted in the open, democratic and fraternal traditions of this party."
December's National Council has been asked to agree to extend the nominations deadline to January 23 for all spokespersons and office bearers

Members back Sheridan sacking

The November 27 special meeting of the Scottish Socialist Party national council, held at Glasgow’s Caledonian University, voted by a large majority to back the executive’s handling of the Tommy Sheridan crisis.

Conducted in an atmosphere of high secrecy - comrades were instructed not to talk about the proceedings to anyone outside the party and even barred from taking notes - it brought together 115 delegates and a good number of party observers to debate the national executive’s decision to push comrade Sheridan into resigning as national convenor. No doubt the EC would have preferred not to have called the special meeting at this time, but such is the turmoil amongst the membership that they really had no other option.

The room was locked before discussion of the EC statement commenced. No other motion and no amendment to the EC statement was permitted - a whole raft of motions from branches and platforms were ruled out of order. The statement, like the November 9 EC motion before it, had been, members were told, agreed unanimously.

This was something of a mystery, since comrades from the Socialist Worker platform, which has three EC members, spoke strongly against the executive statement. Platform comrades expressed regret that “mistakes had been made” - including by their own comrades, obviously - at the November 9 meeting.

The statement itself was split into two parts. The first was the most controversial, since it asked the NC to support the November 9 decision to demand Tommy Sheridan’s resignation. The second part stated that the NC “confirms its acceptance” of Tommy’s departure. It would have been difficult to do otherwise, as comrade Sheridan himself made it clear that he supported both parts of the statement and had no intention of fighting to retain the convenorship.

The statement went on to describe him, despite everything, as “a valued member” of the SSP team in the Scottish parliament. It denied he was a victim of any “factional power struggle or any other form of internal in-fighting” and declared that the SSP “does not wish to comment” on press allegations concerning comrade Sheridan’s private life, which “may be the subject of a future libel action” (see p4).

The first part of the statement was carried with 85 in favour and 20 against. Those opposing consisted of the SW platform and a smattering of others, but when it came to the second part the SW comrades were isolated in voting against. This time there were 93 for and only 10 against (with two abstentions).

Significantly, after comrade Sheridan’s speech it was the SW platform that led a standing ovation. Equally significantly, something like two thirds of those present refused to join in.

The SW platform’s position was outlined in its (unpublished) motion to the NC: “We do not need lessons in morality” from the bourgeoisie, it stated, and it was the duty of the working class movement to stand by leaders of the socialist and anti-war movement when they come under attack.

That is correct, of course - as far as it goes. And it is undoubtedly true that a small minority of the SSP membership, including some at the top, were filled with moralistic outrage at the claims concerning comrade Sheridan’s private and sexual relationships that have featured so widely in the Scottish press, not least the Scottish News of the World. Such comrades have allowed enemies of the working class movement and their allies in the sensationalist media to set the agenda.

At the NC meeting SSP policy co-ordinator and effective leader Alan McCombes talked darkly about the spreading of “lies and misinformation”. He had previously referred to “our own Iago” in a TV interview. There were hints from other comrades that agents of the state could well be involved in leaking the various stories.

This is hardly far-fetched. In the run-up to a general election, where the SSP’s votes could help determine the result in several seats, a state-sponsored campaign to blacken the name of working class politicians is not something unheard of. The SSP has also been closely involved with the Military Families Against War campaign, and comrade Sheridan himself has worked alongside people like Ruth Gentle, mother of the Scottish soldier killed in Iraq. (Of course, the SSP calls for “Scottish troops” to be pulled out of Iraq - English and Welsh ones can stay put, it seems. Nevertheless, such campaigns, even if at present they influence only a small minority of military personnel, need to be nipped in the bud as far as the ruling class is concerned.)

But is the situation as simple as the SW platform makes out? And what of the SSP majority, which undoubtedly believes that a comrade’s private life and sexual preferences should normally be of no concern to the party? To what extent was the leadership influenced by the barrage of embarrassing ‘revelations’ and adverse publicity? Exactly what happened at the November 9 EC meeting which ended in Tommy’s resignation is still a closely guarded secret. How many motions and how many votes were there? Nobody is saying.

It is universally admitted that the line originally spun - that comrade Sheridan had resigned to devote more time to his family - was untrue. He was told to go. But the circumstances that led to his resignation are unclear. We know that the leadership opposed his proposed libel suit and wanted him to refuse to be drawn on any detail of his private life. Tommy refused point blank. It is rumoured that at one point comrade Sheridan walked out of the November 9 meeting and for a short time it seemed that relations had completely broken down between himself and the rest of the party. There was even talk that he had left the SSP.

The fact that the EC would not back the comrade in his libel case was made all too clear the following week in the Edinburgh press conference that brought together Alan McCombes and the six MSPs. The intention had been to give the impression of a united front, but quite the opposite impression was created. Comrade McCombes and the others were evasive when asked if they supported Tommy’s decision to pursue the Scottish News of the World through the courts.

Of course, the advice not to pursue the libel case was a sound one. If comrade Sheridan loses his case, or if he is labelled a liar as a result, that could indeed be very damaging. However, there is something to be said for the position of the Committee for a Workers’ International, which no longer has representation on the EC. The CWI thought the decision to dispense with Tommy’s services had been over-hasty.

It seems that the EC was rushed into a decision in the knowledge that alleged details of Tommy’s private life were about to be splashed all over the tabloids. Some comrades have dismissed the accusation of “presbyterian moralism” made in the Weekly Worker on the grounds that most leading members are atheists and many come from a catholic background (November 18). An obvious and rather desperate attempt at evasion. Anyway, at the very least, we can say that the EC allowed itself to be panicked on the one side by a prurient tabloid press and on the other the SSP’s own moral purity brigade.

However, it is also true that there were other considerations. Comrade Sheridan is perhaps the best known MSP - much more easily identifiable than the SSP itself. According to the constitution, the convenor is not the party leader, but its ‘main spokesperson’ (a role undeniably filled by comrade Sheridan - the press would usually seek out Tommy’s opinion, not the SSP’s). Yet there has been a growing feeling that the party is ‘more than one man’.

Clearly there are lessons in all this for the way in which the affairs of a working class organisation ought to be conducted. Of all the SSP comrades I spoke to, very few have attempted to justify, or even understood, the leadership’s gagging order. As far as I can tell, nothing that would have compromised SSP security (or comrade Sheridan’s libel case) was revealed at the NC.

It is time to come clean on this whole business - especially where the EC discussions that led to the decision to ‘resign’ Tommy are concerned. For one thing, the truth is bound to leak out - neither spin nor silence, as demanded by national secretary Allan Green (see p4), will be able to contain it. But, more importantly, political conclusions need to be drawn - about the role of working class leaders, the unsavoury influence of the media and the power of the state, to name just a few.

Not George Washington

Once upon a time there was a man with wooden teeth. That man led a struggle against British imperialism, and for an independent republic. Fast forward a quarter of a millennium to the present day and we find another man - one with rather similar ambitions. His distinguishing feature is orange skin - courtesy of excessive use of sun beds.

The former, George Washington, boasted about his inability to tell a lie. The latter, Tommy Sheridan, has no interest in such hypocritical myth-making. Indeed, if we turn to the front cover of the book he co-authored with Alan McCombes, we find a photograph of Tommy that actually celebrates his telling a lie.

This photograph is instantly recognisable to socialists on all four corners of the globe. It captures Tommy giving a clenched fist salute as he swears an oath of allegiance to her majesty the queen. We have here an iconic image that exposes the hypocrisy of the monarchist system, one that forces socialists to lie in order to be able to represent in parliament those workers who voted for them.

This lie of Tommy’s was more than merely tolerated by long-term friend and associate Alan McCombes. Every single year, Alan votes alongside at least 95% of delegates to the Scottish Socialist Party’s conference to mandate Tommy, and all our other elected representatives, to tell this lie, to keep doing so until our struggle for a republic makes this charade unnecessary. So it is puzzling to find Alan McCombes confirming to a News of the World hack that he did recently say that he would not help Tommy Sheridan construct a tower of lies (Scottish News of the World November 21).

Before continuing, there is something I would like to get off my chest. In my article in last week’s paper, I claimed to have no idea if Tommy Sheridan was lying when he denied the allegations about his private life that have contaminated the gutter press in recent weeks - or about anything else for that matter (other than his pretence of loyalty to her majesty). Should I feel embarrassed in having to admit that I actually knew more than I was letting on? Perhaps, but I don’t. While I have no first-hand evidence of such lying, I was at the time fully aware that at least one of Tommy’s close friends has, or claims to have, such evidence. Now that Alan McCombes has gone on record to say as much, I want to make two things clear.

Firstly, to the best of my knowledge, there is not a single member of the SSP who thinks Tommy is lying about the issue on which he is pursuing a libel case against the News of the World. That libel action is very narrowly focussed, and my understanding is that all party members are now happy to take Tommy’s word that truth is on his side. That does not mean the party is backing this action as a party.

Tommy stands alone in thinking it tactically wise to pursue the News of the World through the courts. Not because we cast doubt on his word, but because Rupert Murdoch’s lawyers will drag up unrelated parts of Tommy’s private life, the kind of questions which none of us would want to see discussed in a court of law, under the watchful eye of the world’s media. Every member of the party who has counselled Tommy against exacting revenge against Murdoch’s sleazy little rag through the capitalist courts is undoubtedly offering excellent advice. Along with Alan McCombes and everyone else, I think he should drop this lawsuit, and cut his losses as soon as possible, before Murdoch’s legal expenses become prohibitively high - too great for Tommy to do anything other than proceed to trial, and keep his fingers crossed.

Secondly, Alan McCombes’s quote about not wanting to help Tommy construct a tower of lies relates only to lying about issues concerning his private life. Unless I have gotten hold of completely the wrong end of the stick, there is only one reason Tommy Sheridan has lost his post as the SSP national convenor: because members of the party executive were afraid Tommy’s untruths would come back to haunt him (and, if he remained national convenor, the party also) if he was forced to admit he had lied, regardless of what the lie was actually about. I guess it is possible that there is more to Tommy’s fall from grace than this. But if there is, no one has let me in on the big secret.

Did Tommy jump or was he pushed? Did he resign to spend more time with his family or for some as yet unspecified reason? Or (as unattributed briefings from members of the executive would have us believe) was he effectively sacked? And if he was sacked, was it for the reason I believe? If not, then what on earth was that reason? The unanimous vote of the executive that appears to have forced him to “resign” was, in my opinion, an extreme overreaction, a panic measure, a tragic mistake. Some of those who voted for Tommy to step down with immediate effect now openly regret what they did.

Recently, the executive is finding it ever harder to reach unanimity. While a majority have not one iota of doubt that their decision was the only possible one, a minority are now publicly conceding that Tommy’s sacking was premature, to say the least.

Insufficient time was allowed to discuss how to deal with the allegations, allegations that had yet to appear in the press at that stage, and perhaps never would have. Tommy’s decision to tough it out may well have been mistaken. But even if that was true, there was still time to convince Tommy to pursue a different course of action. Perhaps Tommy would have been forced to admit that he had told a lie or two while the executive was still mulling over what to do.

But he would only have found himself in a position similar to Bill Clinton. If he was forced to backtrack, he could have explained that he only lied about something he believed the gutter press had no right to interrogate him about. If he said he only wanted to get these reactionary sleaze merchants off his back, I doubt that a single SSP voter would have been any less forgiving towards Tommy than Bill Clinton’s were in the land of the moral majority.

If opinion polls proved me wrong, if they demonstrated that Tommy’s having been caught telling a few white lies about his private life was damaging the party, does anyone seriously suppose Tommy would not step down voluntarily for the good of the party? That said, I have never doubted for a second that Tommy would have had nothing to worry about.

Whether or not I have vastly overestimated the maturity of those workers who vote for us (when it comes to matters of private morality), Tommy should not have been forced to resign over this issue before the specific allegations appeared in the press. Members of the executive could simply have responded to questions about Tommy’s private life with a simple ‘no comment’ - a refusal to remark on any party member’s private life.

So what happens now? Should the party simply close ranks and draw a line under recent disagreements? I do not believe so - at least not just yet. An attempt to do precisely that was made by a majority of the executive when they called an emergency meeting of the national council at one week’s notice. That meeting drew together over 100 delegates (with many more observers) from 80 branches from all across Scotland. The meeting began at 1.30pm on Saturday November 27, with the room booked for four and a half hours.

This was an extraordinary meeting in every sense of the word. In the first place, although the mass media was told of its existence, every attendee was banned from discussing what was said with the outside world - a blanket ban, I believe, which makes it extremely tricky for me to refer to it at all, other than by addressing information officially handed out by the party spokespersons.

All delegates and observers, apart from the minutes secretary, Catriona Grant (who is not at all neutral in this affair), were banned from taking even the most cursory of notes. That means I could only offer an inadequate report of such a long meeting, with so many speakers, and so many complex arguments and disputes over facts - that is, if I was permitted to give an account of anything that was said at that meeting, which I am not. However, by choosing my words very, very carefully, without identifying any comrade or what was said by whom, I think I can give a taste of the significance of that meeting, of its role in the party’s continuing crisis.

I do not think it is being kept secret that delegates were allowed only one motion to vote on. That motion was drawn up by the executive and was voted for in two parts - neither of which they would allow delegates to amend.

While several emergency motions had been rushed through branches (principally as alternatives to the executive’s motion), the executive refused point blank to let delegates discuss any of these motions, far less vote on them. One of these was passed by 20 members of the three Dundee branches, with not a single vote against, and has the support of the Committee for a Workers’ International. A second has the support of the Socialist Worker platform.

With minor qualifications, I back both motions. I would appeal to their proposers to resist all pressure from the executive to withdraw them, although they should keep an open mind where amendments are concerned. Provided the CWI and SW platform stay firm, both motions will be voted on at the next national council on December 12, and I will do whatever I can in the intervening period to persuade delegates to back these motions.

The party’s executive, desperate to draw a line under the whole business, won the vote at the emergency national council on Saturday, immediately releasing the margin of victory to the media. The executive majority obviously intends to present the four to one vote for the first part of their motion, and the nine to one vote for the second part, as all the endorsement they could possibly require. Wishful thinking, I’m afraid.

Given the scale of our party’s crisis, the national council was effectively battered into submission. After all, how could such an extraordinary meeting possibly have broken up to tell the waiting journalists that no agreement was possible? Given the fact that the executive has promised to allow the CWI and SW platform motions to be voted on at the next national council in a fortnight’s time (along with who knows how many other motions), many comrades undoubtedly felt able to give the executive a face-saving (but potentially extremely short-lived) vote of confidence. A further difficulty for those of us who argued against the executive’s motion was the fact that Tommy Sheridan leant his support to both parts, which makes it all the more remarkable that anyone voted against.

The executive’s motion lumped together many different points that gave virtually everyone something they desperately wanted. This motion was a carefully crafted compromise that attempted to unite the party, at any rate the overwhelming majority of the party. Unfortunately, this unity is on far too shaky a basis. Those who fell into line are akin to ostriches voting to bury their heads in the sand, praying that the press corps is too incompetent to ask the obvious questions.

On the polar extremes of the party on the ‘Tommy Sheridan question’, voting for this motion must have felt like swallowing a sugar-coated pill, with both sides gambling that it is the other lot who are allowing their craving for sugar to override their fear of being fatally poisoned.

I suspect that a majority of those who voted for this motion were far less focussed on which side was right. Their main concern is no doubt to heal the wounds, and as rapidly as possible. They obviously hope that the wronged side will make sacrifices for the good of the party as a whole, rather than pursue vendettas, however legitimate their feelings of betrayal.

The instincts of the latter group (the conciliators) are very healthy and mature, and entirely praiseworthy. However, we will not be in a position to unite on a stable basis unless and until the party learns the lessons of what has gone so spectacularly wrong in the recent past.

Even if Tommy has resigned himself to a less prominent role in the party for a year or so (and that would appear to be the case), the party has to decide if it made a mistake in deposing him. In my opinion there is absolutely no question that it did, and I will not rest until I persuade the majority of the party why that is so.

Bring back Tommy

The Weekly Worker has argued that the executive of the Scottish Socialist Party has succumbed to “presbyterian moralism” in forcing Tommy Sheridan to resign following ‘revelations’ about his sex life. SSP member Tom Delargy believes there is more to it than that

The executive committee of the Scottish Socialist Party have invented a new extreme sport: shooting themselves in the foot with a machine gun. Over the last fortnight they have gotten it down to a fine art, and appear to have an inexhaustible supply of ammunition.

This latest obsession of theirs does not impress all 3,000 members of the party, however. It is beginning to dawn on many of us that, without a thorough-going purge of the executive, we are not going to wake up from this nightmare, the gruesomeness of which was barely hinted at in the article in the last issue of the Weekly Worker (November 21). I personally have lost all confidence in the existing executive, at any rate its majority. That is why I am lending my full support to the motion of no confidence in the executive, originating in the Edinburgh North and Musselburgh branch, to be voted on at the national council on December 12.

Those who have created the mess in the SSP are demonstrably incapable of clearing it up (with the crisis further spiralling out of control every time an official spokesperson intervenes in order to put a lid on it), I am contributing this piece, which may be the first of several - this story is going to run and run over the next few weeks, if not months.

Perhaps I should start by pointing out that, although Tommy Sheridan announced his resignation with the unconvincing explanation that he wanted to spend more time with his family, anonymous members of the executive gave off-the-record briefings calling Tommy a liar: he had been sacked by all 19 members of the executive. Alan McCombes (SSP policy coordinator, and Tommy’s closest collaborator for a decade or two) backed up Tommy’s version of events. He did so at a specially arranged press conference of all our MSPs (Tuesday November16), explaining that Tommy was one of those who voted for his own resignation. A week later, though, the face-saving spin has finally broken down. It is now admitted by everyone that Tommy was sacked. But when members of the executive and party spokespersons are asked to explain why he was sacked, journalists receive nothing but stonewalling.

“Curiouser and curiouser.” That was the response of Iain McWhirter when he and Glen Campbell discussed the latter’s interview with Alan McCombes on Politics Scotland (November 19). According to Alan, Tommy was not sacked because of any of the sex allegations made against him.

Nor was he sacked because he lied about these allegations. So what was he sacked for? Journalists and everyone else are being asked to wait for the full facts to leak out after all 3,000 members of the party are briefed in closed branch meetings over the next month. An edited version of the minutes of the November 9 EC meeting is also promised some time after that. It does not seem to have occurred to members of the executive that it is impossible for a ‘secret’ to be kept by 3,000 people - members are being told not to pass on what is deemed to be highly sensitive and confidential information. It says something about the competence of the executive majority if they genuinely believe that the full facts will not leak to the wider public, probably within hours. Indeed, we can expect several slightly different versions to leak, since different spins will be put on what is revealed at these dozens of closed meetings.

The fact that only the executive’s version of events will be laid out before branches is also worrying. Why won’t Tommy be available to put the record straight if he believes the executive’s representative is guilty of distortion? The ludicrously long period of preparing members before informing the press further exacerbates our crisis. The party is totally paralysed, since all members are expected to keep shtoom on this issue until every last one of us is briefed in private session. And we are incapable of addressing any other question in the media, because our leadership crisis is the only story they are prepared to talk to us about.

I have not been told the full reasons for Tommy’s sacking. Although one executive member promised to hand me every detail necessary to convince me to stop defending Tommy Sheridan inside and outside the party, when I heard all that comrade had to say, I was far from convinced. But it is obvious that Alan McCombes is correct about one thing, and the Weekly Worker article seriously mistaken: Tommy Sheridan’s fall was not a simple result of our executive’s surrendering to a reactionary ‘back to basics’ morality. It is true that during our recent debates over the decriminalisation of prostitution a section of the party has revealed itself as holding many reactionary attitudes where sex is concerned. But these comrades could not carry a vote within the executive to sack Tommy for this reason - certainly not a unanimous vote of all 19 members present. So, one or more other explanations are required.

It surprises me that so many intelligent people I have spoken to are on the lookout for a single explanation for what has been going on. I detect maybe a dozen motives mixed up here. Some comrades will be completely conscious as to what they are up to, others no doubt lacking more than the most primitive self-awareness. A few probably do believe the SSP should not be led by someone who allegedly did the things Tommy is said to have done. They undoubtedly constitute a very small minority. I have been told by members of the party executive (and this is deemed the killer argument by their most enthusiastic apologists) that Tommy’s unforgivable crime was publicly lying about some of the allegations that have appeared in the press.

When Tommy denies the allegations made about him in the gutter press, is he telling the truth? I honestly do not know. More to the point, I could not care less. If he is lying, then he is lying about something that is none of my business - nor is it the business of any other member of the party. So what is utterly unforgivable is that the executive have taken the collective decision to embroil 3,000 members of our party in what is essentially a private matter. Perhaps it might be best for members of the executive to mind their own business. Those who are focusing everyone’s attention on Tommy’s private life ought to be ashamed of themselves.

The executive has no right to inform anyone about such matters, any more than they would have the right to out a gay or bisexual member of the party who remains in the closet. Indeed no socialist has the right to out a closeted homosexual, whether inside the party or not. It is up to the individual to choose how and when they come out to their friends and family, workmates, the wider public - if, indeed, they choose to come out at all. Although Tommy is not being accused of being gay, he deserves exactly the same courtesy. Is that the end of the story? No, of course not.

We are left searching for an explanation as to why 19 members of the executive could have miscalculated so spectacularly as to what party members had a right to know about Tommy’s private life. Some probably were motivated by unprincipled electoral calculations. Mud does stick, and a few may believe the allegations despite Tommy’s denials. Some voters may desert the party because they believe Tommy is being economical with the truth, and, as far as they are concerned, lying is always an issue, even when the thing lied about is utterly irrelevant. I have to focus on this question, because it is the most important for many sincere, but, as far as I am concerned, very misguided comrades.

Just because there are many things socialists must tell the truth about, that does not mean that we cannot lie about anything. Lying is sometimes acceptable, obligatory even. If an armed psychopath asked for directions to someone I believed they intended to murder, I would misdirect them. When Tommy Sheridan swears an oath of allegiance to the queen, I do not denounce him as a hypocrite. So lying per se is not the issue. But what about in this particular case? Well, my understanding (which has yet to be verified by a definitive account) is that Tommy was instructed by the executive either to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about his private life when asked about it, or else refuse to discuss it at all.

In all probability, this is what led to his downfall. I can certainly appreciate why all 19 members of the executive might vote for Tommy’s resignation if he categorically refused to be bound by such an ultimatum. I would not consider it a terrible crime if this was the reason why members of the executive voted for Tommy to step down. I would, however, consider it a tactically mistaken course of action. The executive, in my opinion, had no right to issue such an ultimatum, which was far too inflexible. Comrades should be allowed considerable leeway in pulling the wool over people’s eyes where their private life is concerned. It is no one else’s business. If individuals lie about such a thing, who gives a damn?

If our party persists with the moralistic attitude towards lying about our private lives that appears to have brought down our national convenor, then we will set in motion a feeding frenzy of all the tabloid press to uncover more and more salacious stories about members of our executive, party spokespersons, and perhaps even rank and file members.

Our only hope of calling a halt to such a witch-hunt is by declaring our private lives as a matter for ourselves alone. And if party members want to tell a few white lies about their private lives, that is also the business of the individual and not of the party. If comrades are asked by the gutter press or anyone else to confirm or deny what Tommy says about his private life, then they should respond as he did when asked by the Scottish Mirror what he thought of how Alan McCombes conducts his personal affairs: “I never comment on other people’s private lives.”

I now turn to a motive that was dismissed out of hand in the Weekly Worker article: a coup precipitated by factionalism, personal ambition or simple maliciousness towards Tommy Sheridan. I am not nearly so dismissive. While clearly this was not the primary motive of all 19 members of the executive, I am sure that it was for a handful, at least. How else can we interpret Tommy’s reference to “black arts” playing a key role in his removal from office? Frances Curran and Alan McCombes have both categorically dismissed this notion - the obvious implication being that Tommy is suffering from paranoid delusions.

However, I am convinced that Tommy is on to something. It strikes me that some comrades who lacked the courage to challenge Tommy for the leadership openly have manoeuvred behind the scenes to prise open a vacancy. Currently lurking in the shadows, they probably would have thrown their hats into the ring by now were it not for the reaction to Tommy’s resignation, inside and outside the party.

Outside the party, there is virtual unanimous hostility to the toppling of Tommy; with media pundits smelling an unprincipled coup, it is argued that those who orchestrated it will live to regret it (as will all sections of our party, given the considerable political skills comrade Sheridan has at his disposal).

Partly as a consequence of constant media speculation since Tommy’s resignation, there appear to be the beginnings of a backlash inside the party against his political assassins. It is hard to calculate at this stage how widespread this backlash is or how deep it goes beneath the relatively thin layer of activists into the large mass of passive card-carrying members. The Edinburgh North and Musselburgh branch motion of no confidence in the executive may be a sign of things to come.

And it is not the only sign. At the time of writing, two of our MSPs have broken ranks since last Tuesday’s press conference, both now openly displaying the loyalty towards Tommy that was in such short supply on November 9. Colin Fox and Rosemary Byrne now personally display full solidarity with Tommy in his libel action against The News of the World, loyalty that Alan McCombes felt unable to extend in his televised interview last Friday. Although the consequences of a defeat for Tommy Sheridan could be his being bankrupted, Alan found it impossible to do more than “hope” Tommy wins.

In his televised interview, comrade McCombes felt unable to describe Tommy as having acted with honour and integrity, other than with the remarkable qualification, “in his own terms.” His interviewer, Glen Campbell, afterwards laid a lot of stress on this odd expression. According to Alan, those who voted to remove Tommy immediately, rather than allow him to remain in post until February’s AGM, had acted with honour and integrity. But does that apply to all 19? Take Duncan Rowan, for example. It is possible that the transcript of the taped conversation between our North East regional organiser and a hack that was printed in the Scottish edition of The News of the World (Sunday November 14) was a forgery. However, assuming the extracts printed thus far are genuine, then (as Duncan himself predicted in the transcript) he is finished. He appears to have been caught on tape offering The News of the World the name of one of Tommy’s alleged former sexual conquests, a name allegedly uncovered by the party’s executive.

This information could be used to drag Tommy’s name through the mud, or (still worse) could be used to trap Tommy into coming a cropper during his libel action. Since at least one member of the SSP executive appears to have no problem with leaking highly sensitive and confidential information to The News of the World, Alan McCombes’ characterisation of it as honourable and full of integrity seems downright misleading. Perhaps Duncan is the exception that proves the rule. Perhaps he alone will be caught having disgraced himself. Then again, perhaps not.

As far as I am concerned, we have undoubtedly witnessed an unprincipled power struggle that succeeded in toppling our national convenor - something I deeply regret and hope might be reversed, even in the short term. I have no doubt that those who initiated this attempted coup exploited the allegations about Tommy’s private life (and may have been instrumental in bringing them to the attention of the gutter press in the first place). The fact that Tommy was at loggerheads with the rest of the executive in how to deal with these allegations appears to have been the final straw.

I have no reason to believe that those who behaved dishonourably and without integrity constitute more than a small number of executive members. I do not believe they were ever united behind a single candidate as Tommy’s successor. All the alternative candidates amongst our MSPs are, however, in my opinion liable to drag the party considerably to the right. If the vote of no confidence in the executive is passed on December 12, then Tommy will hopefully return as national convenor.

Challenges ahead for SSP

The Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) is in the throes of its first major crisis. This follows a number of malicious media reports about Tommy Sheridan’s personal life which led to his resignation as party convenor.

Tommy is the party’s most popular figure and one of six SSP Members of the Scottish Parliament.

Over the years Tommy has played a pivotal role in the development and success of the SSP. In recent weeks he has played a key role in helping relatives of soldiers serving in Iraq build a campaign for the withdrawal of the troops.

Following Tommy’s resignation a statement from the party leadership stressed, “The executive completely dismisses the rumours that have circulated in the press that Tommy’s resignation was provoked by a leadership challenge, a factional power struggle or any other form of internal in-fighting.”

Unfortunately since then a number of executive members and Members of the Scottish Parliament have been openly critical of Tommy.

This is very damaging to the SSP, which has been an inspiration to the left internationally.

The SSP still has many challenges ahead. They include supporting Rose Gentle and others in the forces family campaign, and preparing for the SSP’s challenge at the forthcoming general election and for the visit of George Bush and the other G8 leaders to Gleneagles next July.

Attacks on Tommy can only weaken the left

TOMMY SHERIDAN has been central to the success of the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP). In recent weeks he has done a power of good helping build a campaign among military families for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

It is with sadness we note his resignation as convenor of the SSP. This follows a series of salacious “reports” about his personal life.

Even if there was a grain of truth to any of this, so what? What consenting adults do in their personal lives is their own business, providing they don’t hypocritically try to impose Victorian values on the rest of us.

More importantly these allegations just happen to coincide with Tommy’s involvement in building a unique anti-war movement among armed forces families.

The attacks on Tommy can only weaken the SSP and the radical left across Europe. We wish him well and know he will be in the frontline of battles to come.

Keep off our turf

Letter to Respect national council from Tommy Sheridan and SSP national secretary Allan Green dated December 7