It is symptomatic of the febrile state of what passes for Scottish political life that most of Wendy Alexander's antagonists insist she must resign her post. Of course, scalp-hunters were never best reknowned for their sense of proportion or sane judgments. No infraction or breach (still less of laudable rules aimed at securing transparency in political funding) should be disregarded - still less when the breach is by a lawmaker. But rules properly applied should also reflect the wide gulf between recklessness or casual disregard and a breach which is owing to inadvertence, mistake or oversight.
From the known facts, Ms Alexander's travails seem to have been caused by her leaving the mechanics of collecting small campaign donations to people who failed to do the job properly. She might be criticised for her lack of oversight and I am sure her public pillorying has been a more than salutary lesson for her. But I reckon that were there any more substance in the complaint against her we assuredly would have heard more from the usual suspects.
One of the most vocal of those was, of course, Murdo Fraser, MSP. Surely only a die-hard Tory could, with a straight face, call for Ms Alexander's resignation over £950 while setting his face against comment (never mind criticism) of the undeclared £7500 that found its way into David Cameron's constituency and the cool half-million helping prop up George Osborne? Mr Fraser seems lately to have fallen strangely silent - presumably even he being all too aware of the great gulf between a failure to report a small private donation to an internal election campaign and his erstwhile colleague's tendency to view public funds as his own private piggy-bank.
His accomplice, the SNP's Roseanna Cunningham, presumably thinks her unseemly antics are her route back to the Nationalist front bench. Being unpleasant need not be a bar to political advancement but nor is it the only qualification. Given she and Fraser now espouse the view that any infraction of any reporting requirements demands the resignation forthwith of the individual concerned, Ms Cunningham might find her colleagues cast a wary eye her way while Mr Salmond's long memory keeps her in her place.
Of course, it could not be that the feigned outrage over this case itself is an attempt to influence the decision-making of the independent Electoral Commission. Presumably, should Ms Alexander secure less than capital punishment, we will hear charges of "whitewash" and "sell-out". Ms Cunningham has already demonstrated her cool detachment by declaring that she will not feel bound by any determination of the commissioners as "they are not Scottish".
I have known Wendy Alexander a long time. She is a good woman who came into politics to do good things, and Scottish politics would be the worse for her absence. Like me, she was schooled by the late Donald Dewar to find the measure of a political life in whether you had worked to build a fairer and more just society. Unlike her tormentors, she can have no hesitation in meeting that test with a firm "yes".
There is a madness in the air when house room is given to the sort of nonsense emanating from the wilder fringes of the SNP and Tories. Fortunately, Ms Alexander's place as Labour's leader in the Scottish Parliament is a matter for her, her colleagues in the parliamentary party and party members. The spectacle of her being hounded by the attack dogs of an SNP-Tory coalition can but bolster her considerable support.
Brian Fitzpatrick, Advocate Study, 24 Dalziel Drive, Glasgow.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article