Wendy Alexander and the dodgy fundraising

The Scottish Industry Forum - what larks, eh?
As reported on the front page of today's Sunday Times, Wendy Alexander has been at the naughties (read it here). Excellent piece of investigative journalism.

Naughty as in "This way sir, table for two? Yes, it's a very worthy cause, it's perfectly alright, I'll look after your wallet for you. Pardon? Oh, yes, all about improving the local area. Thanks very much."

Slip to the hip and nothing left behind. If you're far too busy to read the article (written by Tom Gordon who will no doubt have a stalker by now), what she was up to was this - she had a Labour front organisation known as the Scottish Industry Forum (it used to come up with cracking wheezes like organising surveys which showed that nine out of ten unionists opposed Independence) and she used the SIF to organise a couple of fund-raising dinners. The dinners were fund-raisers for Wendibles but the guests never knew - the guests thought they were attending fund-raising dinners to help fund the regeneration of their area rather than slip £12,000 into Wendy's pocket. That's why members of the Conservative party and members of the SNP were there as well as others who don't support Labour. I'll have to check with m'learned friend but I believe that this is slightly outwith the usual run of fund-raising activities.
There are the usual question about why an MSP was in need of a £12k bung, but let's leave that on one side for a while (left side or right side, I don't really care, I'm not sure it matters) and take une petite peek at something that was mentioned only in passing in the Sunday Times article - Ashflame.

Actually, Ashflame was only in the paper edition rather than in the online edition. Here's what it says (in its entirety):

In 2004 Alexander's office received £1,000 from Ashflame, a local property developer in her constituency, but did not declare it. As the threshold is "more than £1,000", the donation was a penny below the wire.

Who or what is Ashflame? Well, let's zoom in a bit. Ashflame has six planning applications into Renfrewshire Council - applications to build on Phoenix Retail Park - some of the applications seem a little dated. Lovely development, I'm sure - 8.37 hectares I think, thousands and thousands of square metres of retail units.

How much will it be worth? Well, Ashflame paid almost £28 million for the place in 2005 - before any development, and the bits already leased out bring in rental income of £709,280 a year - so far. I do hope that all donations will be properly declared before the applications are considered or were properly declared before the applications were considered.

You would think, though, that a politician who had a development of this size in their patch and got a wee bung from the developer would want to declare it even though it was a penny under the threshold, wouldn't you? Just for the avoidance of any doubt and the desire to maintain a reputation for honesty, you understand ... How do I know all this? That would be telling, wouldn't it? Anyone who wants to unburden themselves about Wendy's doings and movings should feel free to drop a line or two to paisley.pattern@gmail.com - nothing to do with me, but I'm assured he'll do what he can to sort out politics in that area of the country.

A proper Renfrewshire Renaissance.

An interesting discussion

So there we were, m'learned friend, young grasshopper, Uncle Fester and I, in the club last night watching Newsnight, amazed that Wendy Alexander had taken to referring to herself in the third person (as in "well, Wendy has taken ...") as well as her strange delusion that she had done something good or actually achieved something by persuading the Electoral Commission that they didn't have enough evidence to refer her to the beak - she really needs to take a break for her own health and peace of mind.

Conversation after the programme turned in an interesting direction. Following on from the bit in the Electoral Commission's statement that said that prosecuting in this case wasn't in the public interest, I got to asking "how do they judge that?"

Not just in this case - other cases are deserted because prosecuting them further isn't in the public interest. How does a prosecutor (again, I'm assuming it's usually the proc fisc) decide which prosecutions would be in the public interest and which wouldn't.

M'learned friend tells me that the procurator fiscal has guidance from the Crown Office about the public interest test. I set off in search of that guidance - of which more later. The Electoral Commission, of course, doesn't have that guidance because it is not a prosecutor and really shouldn't be taking decisions about what is and is not appropriate for prosecution, but once an investigatory body like the Electoral Commission is set up such anomalies will occur.

Anyway - how to decide whether it's in the public interest to prosecute:

First, open the Prosecution Code
Turn to page 6 (8 of 16 in a viewer window)
You'll find things laid out there, not a flowchart or anything of that nature, but a list of things that have to be considered. There's quite a bit of detail, but these are the headings:

(i) The nature and gravity of the offence
(ii) The impact of the offence on the victim and other witnesses
(iii) The age, background and personal circumstances of the accused
(iv) The age and personal circumstances of the victim and other witnesses
(v) The attitude of the victim
(vi) The motive for the crime
(vii) The age of the offence
(viii) Mitigating circumstances
(ix) The effect of prosecution on the accused
(x) The risk of further offending
(xi) The availability of a more appropriate civil remedy
(xii) Powers of the court
(xiii) Public concern

There's very little that actually gets said in the document about what decision the procurator fiscal should make, most of it is couched in terms like this:

(xiii) Public concern
In assessing the public interest the prosecutor will take account of general public concerns as well as local community interests.
Arrangements can be made to enable local community representatives to discuss general matters of concern with the Procurator Fiscal although the final decision is the responsibility of the prosecutor.

Once the Procurator Fiscal has decided not to prosecute and advised the accused person accordingly or stated this publicly, there is no way to reverse that decision. Whether a decision of the Electoral Commission falls into the same category or not is an interesting question, but since the Crown Office has said today that there doesn't seem to be any basis for further inquiry it would seem that the case is dead.

Except that it isn't in the public domain yet. Justice must be seen to be done, after all - I'm sure some scribe of a great public organ is already beavering away.

A fine fellow is Tom McCabe

Oh yes he is. He got caught up in the Wendy Alexander scandal through no fault of his own and he'll have to declare those donations on his register of interests as a partner in that partnership, but he is a fine, upstanding member of the community.

That's how I know that the entry in his register of interests which reads

I own a flat in Edinburgh with a market value between £150,001 - £200,000 and receive gross income between £0.00 - £5,000 per annum.

couldn't possibly relate to the property he bought using public money as pointed out by -
Douglas Fraser in the Sunday Herald:

Tabloids seized on the story that the parliament minister and Labour chief whip had added to his £83-per-night Edinburgh hotel allowance with a £9500 allowance to pay for his own flat in the capital. And all this just 50 minutes' drive from his home near Motherwell, with a government-funded chauffeur at his beck and call.

Tom Brown in the New Statesman:

Tom McCabe, the minister for parliament (equivalent of the chief whip and leader of the house at Westminster), has scandalised Scots by negotiating himself a £9,500 annual allowance to buy a flat in Edinburgh - although his constituency home is only a 50-minute drive from the Scottish Parliament and he can claim an £83-per-night hotel allowance if unavoidably detained.

Tom Peterkin in the Telegraph:

An exception to normal rules governing expenses has been made for Mr McCabe, who has been criticised for being entitled to a £9,000 allowance towards buying a new house in Edinburgh.
Normally, the allowance should go only to MSPs who live more than a 90-minute drive from Holyrood. However dispensation was granted to Mr McCabe because of his ministerial workload. Mr McCabe was given the allowance on the basis that it would save on travel and hotel bills.
But yesterday it emerged that the cost of him staying overnight in the capital to work was much less than the £9,500 allowance. His bill for travelling from his Hamilton constituency and staying in Edinburgh hotels was £5,605.

And even the Daily Record said he should give the money back:

A HUGE 97 per cent of Record readers think perks scandal MSP Tom McCabe should hand back his pounds 9,500-a-year allowance for a second home

Budget

SNP budget passed.

With the budget now passed into law and the SNP spending plans being put into effect, Scotland is moving ahead again with progressive and far-sighted policies to encourage business growth, counter the poverty and disadvantage caused by the Labour Government in London. An excellent budget for Scotland.

Labour's voting was bizarre. The SNP Government accepted a Labour amendment because it neither added nor took away from the motion (in terms of impact), so the Labour amendment was passed. Then Labour refused to vote for the budget - Labour MSPs abstained (with the exception of Cathy Craigie who voted against).

Who, exactly, thinks it's a good idea to win your amendment and then not vote for the motion? It's like making your dinner and then throwing it at the wall instead of eating it. Iain Gray justified it by saying doing that meant that Labour won their amendment but didn't have to vote for the SNP budget. We can all only aspire to those giddying heights of intellectual supremacy ...

Helen Eadie must have taken over as leader and no-one told us.

Go on, tell me if this makes sense to you

Some people say my anorak is glued to my ears. There I was gently leafing through the Register of Interests of MSPs, happily saying "ho" and betimes "hum" until I came to Paul Martin's return which stopped me in my tracks:

Since my election to the Scottish Parliament in 1999 I have received sums of money from an anonymous donor or donors, requesting that I donate the money to Stobhill Hospital. These monies are addressed to me at my Constituency office or the Scottish Parliament and are accompanied by letters and newspaper cuttings referring to health matters, in particular Stobhill Hospital. Despite following various avenues of enquiry I have been unable to identify the donor or donors hence these donations have not required to be declared. From May 1999 until November 2003 I received the sum of £130.00 which I passed to Stobhill Hospital Endowment Fund. In June 2007 I passed the sum of £519.88, which had accumulated over a four year period, to Marie Curie Hospice who are currently running the Big Build Appeal to build a new hospice within the grounds of Stobhill Hospital.
[Registered 27 August 2007]

What? There is a case to be made about anonymous donations but naff that, I just want to marvel at this fantastic meringue construction.

It takes some incredible degree of talent to write something like this. I'm awe-struck.

To London they will go, to London they will go

One of those voices sidled up to me earlier and whispered "Tavish Scott's in London today - word is that it is the Lib Dem equivalent of the laying on of the hands."

Oho thinks I, what's he up to?

Then word reaches my delicate shell-likes that Wendy Alexander is in London this evening, ostensibly to attend the Labour group meeting.

Interesting methinks, and I pondered upon the significance of two of Scotland's finest politicians being summoned to Londinium by their masters.

That be not all, as another pigeon lands and I'm told that Cathy Jamieson, cruelly lampooned as the Member for Badly Fitting Trouser Suit from Matalan West, is also promenading on the banks of the Thames. She's still Labour's Deputy Leader in case you haven't seen much of her during Wendy's tribulations (trials come later).

By this point I'm considering that Tav may be there to be annointed or might not but it matters little compared to the summoning of the leader and deputy leader of Labour (Scotland branch).

The real question now is this:

Will Wendy Alexander be saying "et tu Cathy?" or will Cathy be bearing Wendy back to Scotland to say "Gordon is an honourable man"?

If you now have the same mental image as me you'll appreciate why I now have to go and have a lie down in a darkened flannel...

What kind of a loyalty test is that?

Wendy Alexander is Schrödinger's cat

First of all, let's give a big welcome to any physicists who have dropped by with quizzical looks on their faces.

For those who don't know why you shouldn't ask Schrödinger to look after Tiddles when you're off sunning yourself in Thurso, he was trying to illuminate a paradox implicit in the measurement problem (I blame Bohr, it's easier if you ignore most of it and just go with measuring a thing is what makes it real, don't look at the bit about how it means that our existence now affects history before we existed, that's a bad thing to get inside your head. Physicists - you wait ages for one and then none come along at the same time).

Here it goes - take a cat, put it in a box (wear stout gloves) with a radioactive source which will decay within an hour and a Geiger counter connected to a device which will kill the cat if the source decays. Leave it an hour...
Of course, the radioactive source, being unobserved, is in a superposition and so neither decays nor doesn't decay and the cat is therefore neither alive nor dead but is itself in a superposition in which it will stay until you open the box and look at it whereupon it will become one or the other. Oh, look it up yourself - categorical.

Anyway, Wendy Alexander is Schrödinger's cat.

You see, she's neither innocent nor guilty and neither honest nor dishonest (or perhaps she's both innocent and guilty as well as honest and dishonest) because we don't know what's going on inside that box. She emits little particles of carefully selected information - some of which have proven to be lies - but never reveals the whole truth, ask about all the emails I say.

She hangs on tenterhooks for the Electoral Commission but doesn't know whether she'll live or die by their report. She and her colleagues cast doubt upon the probity of others - other MSPs to begin with and now public servants. Her own wee brother joined in on Sunday before her henchmen were released for today's papers.
Let us be done with it and open the box, release all the information and let Ms Alexander dance or go in the radioactive luminescence of Schrödinger's box. Have pity on kitty!

I do hope that there's a random physicist has floated in here on the back of a google for Schrödinger's cat - they'll be more confused by Wendy Alexander than anyone else will be by Quantum Theory.