Another guest post today: freelance journalist Catriona MacPhee assesses Tommy’s claims and his place in history.
As Tommy Sheridan was sent down yesterday for perjury, so concluded the tale of how socialism’s great hero became its executioner. If it’s true that the main problem with socialism is that it’s full of socialists, then the past four months have also been a lesson in how clichés are made.
The final instalment of this live Glasgow soap opera saw the golden boy of the left, who once masterminded a socialist renaissance in Scotland and created a foundation that could have changed the course of Scottish history, complete the full transformation into that which he abhors.
In belittling the mentally ill (Oh, depression you say? *eye brow raise in the jury’s direction*), patronising the weak (I said page 23, do you understand what page 23 means? Can you do that for me? *rolls eyes at the trembling witness *) and besmirching the sometime sex workers and reformed criminals he used to extol as victims of society (Jurors, can you really trust the word of a man who was convicted of a minor crime when he was16? *aside: never mind the fact I chose him as my best man*), he employed the very prejudices that tyrannise the working class.
There are of course lots of conspiracy theories surrounding the case, and going down the ‘does the end justify the means?’ route may have elicited some sympathy for Tommy. He told me in an interview in 2006 that ‘when the News of the World attacks a socialist then there is only one side of the fence for socialists to be on and that’s with the socialists’. I noted at the time that the truth seemed an after thought.
Would wounding the News of the World and the Murdoch empire justify lying in court and sacrificing colleagues and friends, possibly even the whole movement?
To an ardent socialist like Tommy, maybe. The problem with this defence is that the court case wasn’t, despite his greatest assertions, a battle of socialism versus capitalism or working men versus the anti-trade union rags. His underhand attacks on the witnesses during cross-examination, with tones reminiscent of Daily Mail headlines, were proof enough of that. It was personal and only his name was at stake. To view it any other way is to indulge Tommy’s delusions of grandeur.
It looked increasingly as though any assertion of honourable motivation was a cynical smoke screen from behind which he could take vicious and opportunistic swipes at his former comrades. His battle cry of defending the public’s rights to justice (etc) was at complete odds with his own tactics. And when the means begin to justify the means, the battle’s already lost.
Tommy Sheridan’s story is not a totally unfamiliar tale though. Throughout centuries of history, a recurrent pattern has emerged with most socialist and communist movements. When boiled down, most fail, arguably, because of man’s ego-driven weakness for power and greed, both qualities that happily accommodate paranoia. It is mankind’s greatest flaw and no matter how much we progress, we seem doomed to bloodshed, metaphorically or otherwise, by this intrinsic characteristic.
In Tommy’s case it was the pursuits of the ego. These pursuits in a sex club were what triggered the beginning of the end of Tommy Sheridan and latterly what drove the main star in a show that drew larger and larger audiences every day. For the unemployed and bored, to the just plain nosy and on a lunch break, the court house became the best show in town, with Lord Bracadale having to remind the patrons of the public gallery at one stage not to climb over seats in their attempt to secure a good spot in the queue for the next round.
There is no doubt Tommy Sheridan has secured his place in Scottish history books, but it will be for all the wrong reasons. There is no credible socialist party left in Scotland and it will be a long time before the socialist movement sheds the legacy of this saga. It’s an outcome that no one would have predicted seven years ago when six SSP politicians were elected to the Scottish parliament and Tommy Sheridan was compared to the legendary John MacLean.
Sadly, today Tommy Sheridan, as the maker of his own misfortune, begins a prison sentence with only his ego for company.
#1 by douglas clark on January 27, 2011 - 9:51 am
Catriona MacPhee,
There appears to be the prospect of an appeal.
I do not carry a torch for Mr Sheridan, he is a bit of a polemecist as you say, but I do think that there ought to be serious doubts cast on witnesses that stick by their testimony after being paid two hundred grand by the co-prosecuters, the NOW.
That, alone, seems to me to make the case against Mr Sheridan a tad suspect. It seems to me that justice is not served if a it can be alleged that a witness testimony has been pre-paid. Which it was.
It is Scottish Law that is in the box over all of this. There are dark undercurrents that suggest, to me at least, that the interests of News International and the Crown Prosecution Service had more in common than is healthy in a democracy.
Just saying.
It will be interesting to see what grounds Mr Sheridans’ lawyers use in their appeal.
#2 by Alec Macph on January 27, 2011 - 10:17 am
Christ on a flaming bike, did King Louis [1] really say that? What a scumbag.
~alec
http://efrafandays.wordpress.com
[1] Let it be a matter of record that I am really hairy, king of the swingers, geddit?
#3 by Catmac on January 27, 2011 - 1:13 pm
Douglas,
Yep, definitely many serious issues raised about NOTW practices, police tactics and abuses of the public purse.
He did highlight these things in court as much as legally possible and the jury convicted anyway. Will be very interesting to hear the full reasoning behind the appeal as Aamer Anwar is no fool.
Alec, that was just my take on various exchanges, not actual quotes. Am liking the King Louis reference though…
C
#4 by Chris on January 27, 2011 - 2:11 pm
The delusions of grandeur extend to believing that only his party speaks for socialism in Scotland: there are socialists in the SNP and Labour parties who never joined the SSP. There is still a strong and respected current of civic socialism in Scotland, regardless of what Sheridan did.
#5 by aonghas on January 27, 2011 - 6:02 pm
“there are socialists in the SNP and Labour parties who never joined the SSP”
Various scottish parties have socialists in ’em. Hard to believe.
You read it here first, folks. 😉
#6 by steve on January 27, 2011 - 2:26 pm
I take issue with your statement that there is no credible socialist party in Scotland any more. I don’t believe the SSP has been discredited. I joined them recently, they’re a perfectly normal political party, doing the usual stuff you’d expect. Of course it’ll be hard to win the trust of voters who are put off by a divided left, but as you point out in the article, tommy and some followers left the ssp, took a punt on legal action and lost. SSP members had to give evidence when called, but apart from that have tried to stay out of it.
I think that in the eyes of voters, if they are going to join or vote for a socialist party it will be the SSP. The challenge will be to persuade enough of them to win a seat or two in May, and continue to build from there.
#7 by Allan on January 27, 2011 - 8:05 pm
The problem with the SSP is that they were the Tommy Sheridan party. Sheridan was the one with the oritory skills, the delivery, and in the first parliament had a prescence. When Tommy decided to lie and take on the Murdoch press, then the seeds of the SSP’s destruction came to the fore. No offense to the rest, but honestly Caroline Leckie? Colin Fox?
#8 by steve on January 27, 2011 - 9:29 pm
Allan, I agree. not unusual for political parties to be all about the leader, thatcher, Blair, Salmond all good examples. Given the SSP’s recent experience you can understand why they’re wary of investing too much in a cult of the leader approach again.
my hope is that if we can nick a seat or two, someone like Colin fox might grow into the role. plus, and speaking personally, I try to allow myself to be influenced by content rather than delivery, and on content I think both the greens and the SSP are wildly underrepresented in terms of their policies and how well they go down with voters.
#9 by Chris on January 27, 2011 - 10:30 pm
I think they would rather have had a few more stars, but they were a very small party and a very new party that needed time to develop more talent.
#10 by Peter on January 28, 2011 - 2:32 am
Steve you say: “someone like Colin fox might grow into the role. ”
Colin has been leader since 2006 and the party lost 90% of its vote in that time and led the party into two disastrous court cases on the wrong side – in my opinion.
(NB: The one charge that Tommy asked others in the SSP to lie for him ie, subornation was based on an allegation by Colin Fox. That charge was withdrawn by the Crown itself after the challenge to Colin’s evidence. Colin has not yet explained that.)
The SSP United Left dragged themselves into this libel matter and the perjury court action by: giving a secret affadavit to the Herald; making a secret video supposedly (starring Sheridan) and selling them to Murdoch for £200K AFTER the libel trial; and going to the police AFTER the libel trial with secretly recorded “notes” of a supposed confession.
All that I say above was done wholly voluntarily by the SSP/United Left. Check the records.
All the members who did that are still in good standing in the SSP and have never been disciplined by the SSP for their voluntary actions – that is just one of the current problems with the SSP.
Its good to hear you are campaigning on issues but some housecleaning – especially in relation to the large payment from the Murdoch machine of £200K to your member McNeilage – is in order on the above matters before the SSP is taken seriously on the left.
You simply just cannot let your members take the Murdoch shilling without comment and expect to be seen as an independent socialist group.
So have a word with your party and get it cleaned up if possible.
Cheers,
Peter
#11 by Peter on January 28, 2011 - 2:37 am
Sorry slight error Colin has been leader since 2005 – plenty of time for him to grow into the role by now if he was ever going to.
He courted Tommys support at the time of the leadership election and got elected on the back of it.
But apparently if we believe him now he always felt Tommy was deluded and engaging in a disastrous criminal strategy.
Strange that he appeared to be stuck like glue to Tommy during that leadership election if he felt like that.
It does not add up does it.
#12 by steve on January 28, 2011 - 10:55 am
Peter, not that I’m trying to duck this but as a new member i’m not totally aware of all the details you refer to. Frankly I joined because I’m a socialist and given what’s happened to tommy, if you have to pick a party to get behind and help build, it has to be the SSP.
I hope that a new party will emerge, based on the new members like me and others who don’t come with a lot of the original baggage that the party started off with in terms of all the platforms or factions or whatever you call them.
#13 by steve on January 28, 2011 - 11:03 am
Oh and by the way peter, I will look into what you say, not ignoring your points!
On the Colin Fox point, I more meant that when tommy was an MSP, he overshadowed his fellow SSP MSPs. If Colin gets elected in May he’ll have to step up to the mark. He’ll get more media attention for example. So that’s the role I think he’ll be able to develop, and that’s different from any role he’s had before either as an MSP in tommy’s shadow or as the leader of a party with no MSPs.
#14 by barbara scott on January 28, 2011 - 12:16 pm
Peter whoever you are stop talking drivel. I am not invisible nor was my writing pad. I was the democratically elected minutes secretary of the SSP and Sheridan as well as everyone else could see me taking notes which was my job. it is time for the lies and complete fantasy to stop. Get over it – your hero is a nasty liar. Not a socialist.
#15 by James on January 28, 2011 - 12:34 pm
Please don’t refight the court case or the Executive Committee meeting here. Ad hominem comments in either direction may be moderated.
#16 by Chris on January 28, 2011 - 1:44 pm
Peter
The crown withdrew the suborning allegation made by Fox because in Scots Law it needs corroborating evidence. As it was simply Fox’s word against Sheridan’s the charge was dropped. Please don’t try to pretend that this was a reflection on the honest of Colin Fox.
#17 by Catmac on January 28, 2011 - 1:47 pm
Hear hear James.
Steve, I’d like to think I was wrong about there being no credible socialist party in Scotland but as a young (unaffiliated) socialist I already feel jaded and at times exasperated with the movement. I’m also not quite ready to compromise enough to join the others, bar Greens and SNP perhaps (no bias, honest).
The comments section on James Doleman’s blog (http://sheridantrial.blogspot.com/), as well as being brilliant at times, often typefied the poisonous and stagnant rhetoric existing in current parties. I hope I’m wrong though and look forward to seeing a strong, dignified and unified socialist party again.
Ach Tommy, ye bugger!
#18 by Chris on January 28, 2011 - 1:53 pm
I think the major problem about Tommy Sheridan is that his political background was in the hard-nosed, ruthless Leninism of the Militant Tendency.
If you spend the first 10 years of your political life lying that your party is “only a newspaper”, rather than an undercover attempt to take over your local Labour party branch then it probably becomes easy to lie for political ends, and indeed to expect your political allies (Fox, Frances Curran, McNeilage, etc.) to keep lying.
Furthermore if your political strategy is based on the fundamental dishonesty of transitional demands to ferment a revolutionary situation (IE make demands on the capitalist system that it cannot meet and then use its failure to meet them to provoke revolutionary socialism), then it is not a big leap to lie through your teeth in order to defend your view of socialism from an attack by the capitalist press.
#19 by CassiusClaymore on January 28, 2011 - 2:11 pm
The fact is that Sheridan lied in court, in order to enrich himself by £200K (classic socialist), and has been quite correctly punished for it.
Various ludicrous Citizen Smith-style factions are now fighting like bald men over a comb. None of them will see a representative elected.
In response to #1 – there is no such thing as the Crown Prosecution Service in Scotland. With such a basic lack of knowledge of our legal system, it seems odd that you are making wild accusations of conspiracy.
Off-topic – James, you never responded on empty property relief – did you see the piece in today’s Telegraph about widespread avoidance down south? Here’s the link:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/constructionandproperty/8288293/Business-rates-the-loopholes.html
CC
#20 by douglas clark on January 28, 2011 - 3:33 pm
Cassius Claymore,
Yes, that was sloppy of me. But the substantive point has some support. See here:
http://www.ianhamiltonqc.com/blog/?p=452
#21 by steve on January 28, 2011 - 4:03 pm
Catmac, me too! That’s why I joined. Good article by the way.
Chris, interesting analysis. Maybe i’m a heretic in the SSP but that’s not really where I’m coming from. I’m a democrat, and I suppose at the very least I want people to have the choice of voting for a left wing party. We’ll end up with the society people vote for, and it’s bound to be a mix that reflects a diversity of opinion.
But at the moment politics feels out of balance to me, with too many big players crowding around the so called centre ground, and not much on offer elsewhere.
#22 by James on January 28, 2011 - 4:50 pm
I feel I should point out that there is one left party in Parliament that’s not crowding round the centre ground of cuts – the Greens.
#23 by steve on January 28, 2011 - 5:32 pm
Agreed, I wouldn’t want any SSP gains to come at the expense of the greens. I think both parties need to try to tap into labour voters who in many regions will be wasting their list votes if they vote labour.
I’d have thought that disillusioned lib dems might be a good source of votes for the greens.
#24 by James on January 28, 2011 - 5:38 pm
I think that’s true – we appeal more to ex-LDs than the SSP does, and frankly my hope is that all the left votes that don’t come to the Greens go to the SSP. Frances’ line on Newsnicht was spot on, I thought: Solidarity is a party founded on perjury. And don’t start me on the egregious Galloway.
#25 by Indy on January 28, 2011 - 5:56 pm
You need to watch out for Galloway in Glasgow. To me, he made it quite clear in that interview that he is going for the second votes of Labour voters in Glasgow by endorsing a Labour constituency vote.
That’s quite a clever tactic, although completely lacking in principle. Might be enough to get him elected though.
#26 by James on January 28, 2011 - 6:16 pm
Yes, he is, and it’s shrewd. But he has no organisation and only the media to carry his campaign. Plenty of Labour folk hate him too, and finally I think if he does sneak in it is most likely to be at the expense of Katy Gordon.
#27 by Allan on January 28, 2011 - 7:22 pm
Steve – “someone like Colin fox might grow into the role. â€
As posters have mentioned above, Fox has been in the role since 2005 and has shown the policical nous of a lemming at every opportunity. I remember his sole contribution to the 2005 Westminster election campaign being him prancing around Argyll Street dressed up as Robin Hood – imature student politics is not what we want from prospective representitives.
Peter – Of course Saint Tommy wouldn’t dream of taking the Murdoch shilling, he would only sleep with an employee of the Dirty Digger.
Catmac has hit the nail on the head, there are no CREDIBLE parties expousing Left/Centre policies, which weird considering that I think that with the rightward march of Scottish Labour, the Lib Dems propping up a Tory government and the SNP not quite as socialy democratic as they would make out in some areas (Trump!), there is a vaccum at the left of the Scottish political spectrum.
#28 by James on January 28, 2011 - 7:24 pm
Dude, I get tired of having to remind people that the Greens exist, are a left party, and are in Parliament, especially here where I blog. Unless you think we’re incredible.
#29 by Observer on January 28, 2011 - 7:53 pm
I think the only potential MSP who has a hope in hell of getting elected from the far left of the spectrum is Galloway.
Sheridan was a very stupid man not to listen to his friend when he warned him not to sue the News of the World. However the perception is that the other members of the SSP lined up with the NOTW & a very dubious prosecution in order to do Sheridan in. That seems a tad ungrateful as none of them would have been elected as MSPs if it wasn’t for Sheridan.
I am not going into the ins & outs of the court case, I am just saying that is the perception & that’s what counts to voters.
The criminal prosecution itself should not in my view have been brought. It was a civil case originally, the News of the World had intimated they were going to appeal, they had the resources to do that, & I saw & see no public interest being served in the criminal case that was brought. The Crown do not routinely prosecute perjurers in very serious cases of murder, child abuse, rape, etc, far less civil cases where there is a right of appeal. This was not a serious case, it was not a criminal case & the Crown are not going to prosecute all potential perjurers in the future even in serious criminal cases,as the system quite clearly could not cope with that. There seem to have been special rules for Tommy.
That is what I think will be the enduring story in connection with this case. Not the stories about Cupids etc, but the sense of unease that the Crown chose to prosecute when it was not necessary & was in fact unprecedented in Scots law.
In that way, bizarrely, Sheridan’s reputation may be saved from dropping as far as it could have if he was just viewed as a philanderer & liar. Of course the support of his wife has had a big impact too, she more than anyone had cause to be angry, but she stood by her man even when she was accused of using tactics learned from the IRA. What the hell was that about?
I think we write the Sheridans off at our peril.
Incidentally let’s remember that if politicians were judged by their sexual conduct JFK would never have been President.
#30 by Peter on January 29, 2011 - 4:54 pm
The vast majority of the analysis of the Sheridan affair, to coin a phrase, is based on the latest fact that he was found guilty of perjury by a jury. That is rather a limited analysis.
The perjury decision does not overturn the decision of the first jury that the NOTW sex stories were untrue.
The NOTW is appealing that verdict. We will see whether that self described group of “chancers” (see their trial testimony) who commission sex stories from people they describe as “barking” (see their trial testimony) are successful.
I do think it unlikely that their organisation mired as it is in allegations of criminality on an industrial scale will be successful but we shall see.
If they fail to overturn the libel jury verdict the juries will stand at 1-1.
There is no denying that fact of course that Sheridan was found guilty – it was in all the papers after all:).
The interesting issue for me and the £200,000 question is what if it turns out that there has been a miscarriage of justice here? Just think through the consequences of that.
What if he is successful in his appeal against his conviction
?
Would not the fact of an innocent Sheridan rather undermine the claims of the SSP that he is a sexual predator and a liar.
Or would they say he is still really “guilty” as the right wing did when the Birmingham Six and Guildford 4 verdicts were quashed by the higher courts.
As time goes on large bits do appear to be falling off the Tommy as sexual predator narrative maintained by some in the SSP.
For example look at the three women who the SSP claimed were the supposed sexual predators “victims” they wre now ex-SSP members Trolle and McGuire and Khan from the NOTW).
No one other than a small rump in the SSP and the NOTW believe McGuire. Even the police and the Crown consider she was not teling the truth (see the trial testimony). The jury in the libel trial appear also to have rejected her exotic stories of orgies and drink and drugs also.
Khans claims of an affair were also specifically deleted by the perjury jury and the libel jury appeared not to believe her also.
A part of Trolles testimony of affairs was upheld by the perjury jury but none of it (it appears) was believed by the libel jury.
So a reasonable person surely must say there is at least some doubt about sex stories the NOTW and the SSP claimed showed Sheridans character.
What if there has been a miscarriage of justice here? If there was then the consequences will be dramatic for Scottish politics, policing and court system.
It all seems a bit fishy to me at this point.
Maybe the NOTW and the SSP leadership are telling the truth. There is an appeal in progress in both the perjury verdict and the libel verdict. All sides will have their chance again to argue their case.
It is not going away. Various other enquiries are underway and new information is emerging every day.
For example Crown witnesses from Manchester in The Sun this week. They claimed in court they had no deal with News International but the ink is barely dry on the judges sentence and they are in a (presumably paid for) interview in The Sun. If they are just doing the interview with The SUN out of the goodness of their hearts I retract that implication of payment.
I do have some doubts, however, as it emerged in the trial that other witnesses had lied or had forgotten about payments by Murdochs.
In Trolle’s case she denied (twice on oath) offers of large payments but the NOTW confirmed the offers were made.
No explanation hs yet been forthcoming for that matter. Until there is something may rotten in the state of Denmark to my mind – but lets see. Time will tell.
Regards,
Peter
Pingback: Robert Burns and other things that moved Scotland’s bloggers this week – Scottish Roundup
#31 by Chris on January 30, 2011 - 11:07 am
I think the IRA thing has been deliberatelt blown out of proportion. Given that the interviews were leaked we can see exactly what the policeman said and how he said it.
#32 by Indy on January 30, 2011 - 11:49 am
There’s a lot more stuff in the News of the World today.
Frankly I was bored to tears with the whole thing before the trial ended and I am even more bored of it now.
Tommy Sheridan should never have sued the News of the World in the first place. From that misjudgement everything else has flowed. The consequence has been to undermine the very notion of a socialist party as a rational political choice.
The excuse often given by Sheridan supporters is that by taking on Rupert Murdoch he was taking on the capitalist system. Not so. Murdoch et al are just symptoms of the capitalist system. Even if the News of the World is brought down by the phone tapping stuff something just as bad will replace it because there is a demand for the kind of crap it prints – and that demand is strongest among the kind of working class communities that the SSP were trying to win over. All Tommy has done is to feed the appetite for titillation and puerile drama, not undermine it.
#33 by Jeff on January 30, 2011 - 3:22 pm
I agree with you on the boredom front Indy and although I think it’s a shame that Tommy’s career has come to this, I don’t have much sympathy.
Even a humble blogger knows not to pick a fight with a person who buys ink by the barrel; Tommy spectacularly picked the wrong battle. End of, as they say.
#34 by douglas clark on February 2, 2011 - 7:16 pm
Hmm…
Part of the , err, discovery process over Andy Coulson says this, apparently,
http://tinyurl.com/675zhmt
Basically, the ‘lost’ NoW emails have now been ‘found’.
I wonder whether that impacts on the evidence Mr Coulson gave in the Sheridan case.
Personally, I think these are very murky waters.
So do some other people:
http://tinyurl.com/6xkgo6x
I wonder what Cassius Claymore makes of it?