‘Carry on Comrade? No, hold on a minute!’ By David Archibald Walking along Sauchiehall Street in December 1985, I caught sight of a poster for a public meeting in the McLellan Galleries: ‘Revolutionary Morality and the Split in the WRP’ was the unappealing title. The revolutionary left, past masters in the art of splitting, had surpassed its own Pythonesque standards as Gerry Healy’s Workers Revolutionary Party splintered into seven f(r)actions amidst (unproven) accusations that Healy had abused female members of the party. I laughed out loud. I’m not laughing any more. For five weeks this summer, as war raged in Lebanon and Iraq descended into sectarian civil war, the Scottish media has been consumed with allegations concerning the private life of Tommy Sheridan MSP, former convenor of the Scottish Socialist Party. In what just about every journalist has described as ‘the defamation case of the decade’, accusations were laid that Sheridan: had cocaine and champagne-fuelled orgies with former escort girl and SSP activist, Fiona Maguire; that he visited Cupid’s sex club in Manchester with News of the World columnist Anvar Khan and others; that he had a series of sexual encounters with another former SSP activist, Katrine Trolle, and that he was involved in a threesome with a prostitute and his brother-inlaw in Glasgow’s Moat House hotel. A casual observer might have expected to hear the Benny Hill theme tune played as pursuer, defender, judges, et al. gave chase around Edinburgh's Court of Session. But it was not all frivolous fluff. On top of the litany of lurid sexual accusations, one witness, Helen Allison, claimed that she had been "encouraged" not to give evidence – a matter that, according to press reports, is the subject of a criminal investigation. In public Sheridan has always maintained that there was never a shred of truth in the allegations, stating, on Newsnight Scotland, that he had never cheated on his wife, and that he would be a ‘love rat’ if the allegations were true. In court Sheridan testified that all the events were untrue.
71
the drouth
Seventeen witnesses testified, some, under the threat of court action, that Sheridan was not telling the truth. When the verdict was announced on Friday 4 August 2006, the result astonished just about everyone who had followed the detail of the case. In a speech immediately after his victory, Sheridan claimed it was the equivalent of Gretna travelling to the Bernebau and beating Real Madrid on penalties. For others, it seemed more akin to watching a boxer knocked to the canvas 17 times only to stand, punch-drunk and reeling, as the referee lifted his weary arm in victory. In a letter to SSP members following the verdict, Sheridan stated: ‘The jury’s verdict is a victory against press intrusion, against hypocrisy, against lies. As such, it is not just a victory for me and my family – it is a victory for workers, trade unionists, and genuine socialists everywhere.’ It would have been a great story if it were true; sadly this is not the case. Perhaps the first point to make is that this is not a sex scandal; this is a political scandal. A sex scandal is when you get caught having illicit sexual encounters. A political scandal is when you get caught having illicit sexual encounters and expect an entire political party to cover for you. On 31 October 2004 the News of the World ran a feature about an unnamed MSP who had visited a sex club in Manchester with, among others, its very own ‘sexpert’, Anvar Khan. The SSP executive convened an emergency meeting on 9 November 2004 amid concerns that Sheridan was the MSP. Sheridan attended this meeting and stated that he had visited Cupid’s sex club on two occasions, once in 1996 and again in 2002. He accepted that his behaviour was ‘reckless’, but appealed for support in order to handle the events ‘in his own way’. This meant denying the visits to the club, and, if necessary, pursuing litigation against the News of the World. It was not moral outrage but Sheridan’s strategy of denial, including
a preparedness to commit perjury in court, which resulted in the SSP executive voting, unanimously, for him to resign. It was agreed that this decision be reported, verbally, to the SSP membership through a series of members’ meetings throughout Scotland.
The party will now look at a number of options on the question of the convenorship in full consultation with party branches and members around the country.’
The party’s minute secretary, Barbara Scott, minuted the meeting. The minutes were later ratified, unanimously, at the SSP executive of 24 November 2004, but in order to safeguard Sheridan’s confidentiality, it was agreed to keep the minutes confidential. The SSP National Council endorsed this decision on 28 November 2004 and also passed the following resolution:
Sheridan himself issued the following statement:
Part One ‘National Council recognises the difficult decisions faced by the Executive Committee at the November 9th special Executive Committee meeting.This NC supports the unanimous decisions made at that meeting concerning the convenor’s position.’ For – 85; Against – 20; Abstentions – nil Part Two ‘The SSP National Council confirms its acceptance of the resignation of Tommy Sheridan MSP from the post of National Convenor. Tommy remains a valued member of the most dynamic team of MSPs in the Scottish Parliament. The National Council 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. The party remains united in its support for an independent socialist Scotland, its opposition to war and racism, and the other policies detailed in our previous election manifestos. We understand that recent allegations in a Murdoch newspaper may be the subject of a future libel action by Tommy Sheridan and consequently the Scottish Socialist Party does not wish to comment on matters concerning the allegation.
For – 93; Against – 10; Abstentions – 2
‘I wholeheartedly support the SSP Executive Committee statement agreed at today’s meeting.The Scottish Socialist Party has today showed great maturity in reaching a unified position on the way forward. 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.’ Over the next 18 months Sheridan conducted a campaign, inside and outside the SSP, concocting a myth that he had been ‘done in’ by a group of leading members who were personally embittered or jealous. Top of his hit-list were the three ‘witches’ – the female SSP MSPs, Frances Curran, Rosie Kane and Carolyn Leckie. ‘We have the same intrigue and black arts going on as in other parties now,’ claimed Sheridan in the weeks following his resignation. With a press corps eager to jump on stories about in-fighting and intrigue, misogynist tales of jealous/ bitter/frustrated, etc., women were seized on with glee. The SSP, the party that had received 130,000 votes and returned six MSPs at the 2003 Holyrood elections, now tore itself apart as Sheridan’s courtroom battle with the News of
the drouth
72
the World loomed. Things worsened in late 2005 when it became apparent that members of the executive might be forced to testify in the case. The minutes became crucial. It had been reported in the press (The Herald, November 2004) that minutes of the executive at which Sheridan was forced to resign existed. Until recently, no one inside the SSP questioned, either their authenticity, or their existence. Sheridan, however, stated publicly that there were no minutes of the meeting (Sunday Herald, January 2006) before proceeding to argue that the minutes should be destroyed; a motion was passed at his own Cardonald SSP branch on 15 May 2006 stating: ‘… This branch is appalled that a Socialist party would keep a record of any document concerning a member’s private life, and considers such an action to be irresponsible, distasteful and the violation of the individual human rights of such a member.
ordinator, Alan McCombes, had even served a brief spell in Saughton prison for refusing to comply with court requests to submit the minutes. But they were handed over to the courts the day after a heated debate at the SSP National Council on 28 May 2006, a meeting at which Sheridan spoke vociferously in favour of handing over the minutes, and against the wishes of the SSP executive. During the meeting Sheridan also released an open letter, simultaneously to the press and to the delegates, in which he argued: Up until two weeks ago I had never seen the document. I have still never read it and I am denied the right to challenge it or hold a copy … However, now that such a disputable document has been constructed, concealed from the individual concerned, constantly leaked to the media and admitted to in court, I believe it should be handed to the court to trigger the release of Alan McCombes. The open letter/press release also stated:
The branch condemns unreservedly the practice of recording confidential discussions between EC members and the concerted campaign of half-truths, distortions and outright lies that have been spread about comrade Sheridan.This branch believes that every comrade is entitled to a private life, without intrusion by the party or ‘Big Brother’ type recordings of confidential discussions. This branch demands that any such record or minutes involving comrade Sheridan and his private life, if such a record does indeed exist, should be immediately destroyed...’ Sheridan circulated the resolution from his own parliamentary e-mail account. Initially the SSP had refused to co-operate with court requests to hand over the minutes, arguing that political parties should have the right to record decisions free from state interference. Press and Policy Co-
73
the drouth
Today there exists an unsavoury cabal of comrades at the core of the leadership, their hands on the apparatus, who are more interested in pursuing personal vendettas, through vile lies and slander, than conducting the class struggle. Of course, what he really meant is that a group of leading SSP members had told him that they would not perjure themselves in court. So, in order to discredit their testimony, and the validity of the minutes, they had to be castigated as opponents involved in an elaborate plot to frame him. Coincidentally, by the time of the National Council, the News of the World’s legal team had been handed a set a fake minutes of the November meeting. Where these minutes came from remain a mystery, but they back up Sheridan’s version of events.
The NC also voted by 81 votes to 60 to give ‘political support’ to Sheridan in his court case, although this was done with no discussion on the detail of the case itself. Most delegates were not aware, however, of the Machiavellian manoeuvrings that were about to be played out. In May 2006 the SSP executive voted 17 votes to 2 to instruct the witnesses not to commit contempt of court or to perjure themselves in the forthcoming trial. No prizes for working out that two of Sheridan’s supporters voted against the motion. By now the trial had assumed Kafkaesque proportions. Those associated with the minutes were in effect put on trial by Sheridan. The witnesses were now faced with being accused of corroborating the contents of the minutes and facing accusations of treachery. Alternatively, they could lie and say that the minutes were fabricated, which, in effect, meant that they were part of a plot to frame Sheridan. Damned if they do, damned if they don’t. I attended court on one occasion, the day that SSP executive members Alan McCombes and Keith Baldassarra gave evidence. In different days I had stood on the picket line outside the News International complex in Kinning Park in the late eighties during Rupert Murdoch’s infamous union-busting activities alongside Baldassarra, McCombes and Sheridan. Changed days. McCombes stated he was a reluctant witness: ‘Your client, I have to say, the News of the World, symbolises everything that as a socialist I have stood against my whole adult life.’ He outlined his version of the events leading up to Sheridan’s forced resignation: ‘There was not one person who was not extremely saddened, because everyone recognised Tommy as the most popular, eloquent and charismatic leader in Scotland, possibly the UK. It would be absurd to take that decision unless there were very, very powerful reasons.’ Responding to the suggestion that he was trying to frame Sheridan, he stated: ‘The idea we fabricated these minutes, framed up Tommy Sheridan, perverted the course of justice, and we are now defending this monstrous frame-up is, frankly, preposterous.’ And it was difficult to argue with that. Was Sheridan the victim of a series of conspiracies – or one massive one combining the SSP leadership, Katrine Trolle and her two flatmates, Fiona Maguire, Anvar Khan and two
women who stated that they had seen Sheridan in bed with another man and a prostitute – all working with the News of the World. It was, frankly, preposterous. On day nine of the case, events took a dramatic turn when Sheridan seemingly sacked his entire legal team. That night on Scotland Today Bernard Ponsonby concluded his news item stating: ‘The case will reconvene on Tuesday with Tommy Sheridan, once again, centre stage.’ Wittingly or otherwise highlighting the notion of Sheridan as an actor. When Sheridan cross-examined SSP National Secretary Allan Green, he said: ‘I put it to you the so-called minute is as genuine as a ten bob note.’ But Sheridan’s Freudian slip gave another glimpse of the truth. Obviously, pre-decimalisation, a ten bob note was indeed the genuine article. Later Green responded: ‘For you to turn round and accuse the likes of myself of monstrous frame-ups, for any other socialist, never mind one of your standing, it is an appalling thing to do.’ Green's evidence corroborated that of 10 other SSP witnesses who supported the minutes. Sheridan attempted to argue that all the witnesses who gave evidence unfavourable to him were politically motivated plotters: ‘We are in the middle of a political civil war for the heart and soul of the SSP ... I am afraid this courtroom has become the arena for that battle … If you are suggesting these witnesses are not able, not willing or not capable of conspiring to pervert the course of justice, then you simply were not listening to their evidence.’ But not all of the SSP witnesses contradicted Sheridan’s story. Four members of the SSP executive backed Sheridan’s version of events. Two others who had not attended the 9 November meeting rejected the suggestion that the minutes were distributed and agreed at a later meeting. Sheridan’s case appealed to the most backward prejudices about women. A common feature of those who back Sheridan’s version of events is that an outpouring of hysteria marked the SSP executive, which forced Sheridan to resign. Hysteria, a term whose origins lie in the Greek, hysterikos, is identified with a condition of excess emotion, or uncontrollable fear. Hippocrates argued that it was the result of the irregular movement of blood from the uterus
the drouth
74
(hystera) to the brain. In the 19th-century female victims of hysteria were ‘cured’ by benevolent physicians who massaged their genitalia or used vibrators to stimulate orgasm. In Beeton’s Book of Household Management (1859-61), she writes:
‘Hysterics. – These fits take place, for the most part, in young, nervous, unmarried women. They happen much less often in married women; and even (in some rare cases indeed) in men. Young women, who are subject to these fits, are apt to think that they are suffering from “all the ills that flesh is heir to”; and the false symptoms of disease which they show are so like the true ones, that it is often exceedingly difficult to detect the difference. The fits themselves are mostly preceded by great depression of spirits, shedding of tears, sickness, palpitation of the heart, &c. A pain, as if a nail were being driven in, is also often felt at one particular part of the head. In almost all cases, when a fit is coming on, pain is felt on the left side. This pain rises gradually until it reaches the throat, and then gives the patient a sensation as if she had a pellet there, which prevents her from breathing properly, and, in fact, seems to threaten actual suffocation. The patient now generally becomes insensible, and faints; the body is thrown about in all directions, froth issues from the mouth, incoherent expressions are uttered, and fits of laughter, crying, or screaming, take place. When the fit is going off, the patient mostly cries bitterly, sometimes knowing all, and at others nothing, of what has taken place, and feeling general soreness all over the body.’ Opposition to Sheridan came from hysterical women and later mental illness when one of his supporters, Steve Arnott, claimed that those who never backed up Sheridan’s version of events were suffering ‘mass delusion’. Strangely he never called them ‘liars’. The dark misogyny at the heart of the case is apparent in the treatment of Katrine Troll. In a private conversation with one of Sheridan’s supporters about how to handle the ‘problem’ of Katrine, he said:
75
the drouth
‘I’d hang her out to dry.’ So Sheridan’s supporters rail against bourgeois morality in their pursuit of an extreme utilitarianism where ‘inconsequential’ members of the party must be sacrificed to save the important ‘icons’. Which is, as any decent human being will note without too much trouble, absolutely appalling. But as they run around citing Trotsky’s Their Morals and Ours, here’s a quote: ‘Just the same,’ the moralist continues to insist, ‘does it mean that in the class struggle against capitalists all means are permissible: lying, frameup, betrayal, murder, and so on?’ Permissible and obligatory are those and only those means, we answer, which unite the revolutionary proletariat, fill their hearts with irreconcilable hostility to oppression, teach them contempt for official morality and its democratic echoers, imbue them with consciousness of their own historic mission, raise their courage and spirit of self-sacrifice in the struggle. Precisely from this it flows that not all means are permissible.’ One can find no word from Trotsky’s that permits you to castigate a woman that you sleep with as you attempt present a public image as a wholesome family man in the process (bourgeois). During the closing days of the trial Sheridan moved even further into the realms of fiction. ‘I feel I am the mildmannered Clark Kent of Scottish politics, Superman by night … The only difference with the fictional Superman is he was
made of steel. I am not ... I am flesh and blood.’ Perhaps not made of steel, but what a brass neck. Struggle Solidarity and Socialism was transformed into Truth, Justice and the American Way. Lois Lane points out in Superman Returns, released mid-way through Sheridan’s defamation action: ‘Superman cannot lie.’ Sheridan has proven himself to be something of an expert.
Yet Sheridan’s denials of what appeared to be obvious, carried the day. Who knows why? Maybe the jury believed that he was indeed the victim of ‘the mother of all stitch ups’. A combination of rhetorical force and emotional manipulation perhaps helped Sheridan win his verdict. Perhaps they were swung by the testimony of his wife. Perhaps the jury reacted against the gutter journalism of the News of the World, whose journalistic practices were called into question during the trial. Perhaps the jury considered that if they had found against Sheridan, the ‘punishment’ did not fit the crime. He would most likely have been declared bankrupt, his reputation would have been in tatters and no doubt it would have had serious implications for his personal life. It cannot have been on the basis of the evidence that was laid before the jury, which was overwhelmingly unfavourable to his version of events. What of the fake minutes? Sheridan did not question any of the 11 witnesses about their validity and, subsequently, the judge, Lord Turnbull, ruled them as inadmissible. Of course fictitious documents have popped up in labour movement history well before now. The Zinoviev letter springs to mind. Zinoviev, like many of the old Bolshevik leaders, was forced to admit his involvement in conspiratorial plots against the great leader. Of course, the scale is not the same, but the process is similar. SSP party officials were forced into the witness stand and had two options. Tell the truth and be denounced. Or ‘confess’ that they had been involved in the creation of a fabricated set of minutes in an attempt to undermine their ‘great leader’. Zinoviev was found guilty and executed on 25 August 1936. In the political fall out, Sheridan denounced the 11 members of the SSP who went to court and told the truth. He then proceeded to put these people in the same category as the scabs who had broken the 1984-85 miners’ strike. His opponents were also to be liquidated. Thus the Daily Record headline on the Monday after his triumph read: ‘I’ll destroy the scabs who tried to ruin me.’ These included the SSP’s workplace organiser, Ritchie Venton, a veteran with a history of 35 years in the labour movement. According to press reports, Sheridan pocketed £30,000 for selling his story to a tabloid in which he stated that of the £200,000 plus expenses that he won in the court case a significant part would be placed in a trust fun for his daughter. Well done, comrade. Wonder what Che would have thought about that; after all, Guevara – who Sheridan cites as a personal hero – wrote a letter to his daughters explaining that he had not left them a peso and that they would grow to understand why. One of Sheridan’s leading supporters is John Aberdein. In his novel Amande’s Bed, one of the main characters leaves the Communist Party because the party lied to
its membership about Russia’s invasion of Hungary in 1956. One of the last things he says to his soon-to-be ex-comrades is: ‘Bein’ in the party doesna mean ye put your brains oot wi the empty milkbottles in the mornin’. Somebody said, was it Ruskin or Mill maybe, Truth is indivisible [...] Never had occasion to ken what that meant afore, but I think I ken now [...] The Party had better face up, I’m tellin ye.’ The full quote is ‘Truth is indivisible, hence it cannot recognise itself; anyone who wants to recognise it has to be a lie.’ How appropriate that it comes from the pen of Kafka. On Tuesday 8 August, the minute secretary, Barbara Scott, handed 24 pages of handwritten notes which formed the basis of her minutes to the police and released this statement. Today I handed in my handwritten notes of the SSP Executive of 9 November 2004 to Lothian and Borders Police. I did so after today’s Daily Record quoted Tommy Sheridan as saying that he would ‘destroy’ all those who had given evidence that was not favourable to him in his court action against the News Of The World … The most important principles I stand by are telling the truth and maintaining my integrity. Today I felt I had no other course of action than the one I took. Of the 19 people present at the end of the 9 November meeting, 15 have now confirmed the accuracy of her minutes. Sheridan’s victory leaves his comrades open to accusations of perjury and conspiring to pervert the course of justice, which can carry jail terms of up to 10 years. Sheridan’s supporters appear keen to avoid one. Thus Aberdein downplays the suggestion when he writes: ‘There has been much talk of perjury flying since the verdict, but informed legal opinion (see Alistair Bonnington on the BBC website) suggests that a perjury trial arising from a civil case is very unlikely.’ In their desire to proclaim a victory against tabloid techniques, unfortunately some of Scotland’s leading journalists have been found sadly wanting in their post-trial analysis. Writing in The Herald the day after the case, columnist of the year, Ian Bell, states: ‘Even the alleged, disproven, fantasised actions of Mr Sheridan were entirely lawful. To put it another way: who cares? … Tommy and his wife and their families cared, and quite right, too. Their names are good, and should remain that way … I never once saw Tommy touch alcohol. I never once saw him act towards a member of the opposite sex in an inappropriate manner.’ Oh really? Is this the extent of serious journalism these days? What a dreadful lack of insight, from the, yes, columnist of the year. How on earth did Bell manage to get it so wrong on this count: duped by Sheridan or, well ‘who cares’? ‘Private life should remain
the drouth
76
private,’ he states. Does he not read the papers? Was he really unaware that Tommy Sheridan had torn asunder the private lives of women he had slept with? Did he not read the testimony of Katrine Trolle, a former SSP member who had an affair with Sheridan, whose evidence was backed up with details of her phone records and evidence from two of her flat mates. Her reputation besmirched by the decision of the court, she has since returned to her native Denmark. Thankfully not everyone in the Scottish press has been prepared to acquiesce with the treatment meted out to women who are not prepared to perjure themselves to save someone’s false reputation. (‘Sheridan Trial has Left my Life in Ruins’ by Lorna Martin/The Observer, 14 August 2006). There are 100 reasons why even a mainstream politician cannot live a secret life – one small one is the question of integrity. But any movement serious about challenging the establishment cannot have as its figurehead someone with skeletons tumbling out of their cupboard. No-one comes out of the Sheridan fiasco unscathed. The prospect of building a unified party of all shades of socialist thought has been torn apart, not because of serious political infighting, but because of the
77
the drouth
outrageous behaviour of one individual, shored up by others through a combination of misguided loyalty, political opportunism and mindless sycophancy. At the time of writing (17 August 2006) the SSP is still a unitary political force. But I’d bet my bottom dollar that by the time you read this article there will be two parties of the left in Scotland. It’s not difficult to work out why. In a letter to his supporters, dated 17 August 2006, Sheridan bemoaned his opponents whose ‘obsession with rewriting the verdict of my defamation trial would continue to be a stone weight around our necks.’ Sheridan’s attempt to re-write his own political and personal history means that he has to walk away from the SSP and from anyone who wants to ask detailed questions about this case. The possibility of a unified party of the left may be off the agenda for the foreseeable future. But there are many other issues that have arisen in this case which are of interest beyond the realm of left politics. The final word on this disastrous debacle in Scottish politics has still to be written.