[Marxism] What happened in the SSP?

[Louis Proyect]

Fact and Fiction - what's happened in the SSP?

by Martin Wicks

The Scottish Socialist Party was viewed by 
socialists in Britain and around the world as a 
success story. The election of six MSPs to the 
Scottish Parliament was a breakthrough, taking 
advantage of a partial PR electoral system. The 
SSP united virtually all the socialist currents 
on the left in Scotland in a single party; a rare 
event in a country where fractious and warring 
left of Labour organisations had long been the 
norm. The conditions for this unity were created 
through a number of years of common work, which 
helped to overcome old hostilities. But today, 
that unity lies in tatters. The SSP has been 
split. Tommy Sheridan launched his new movement 
on September 3rd: Solidarity ­ the Scottish 
Socialist Movement. This brings to an end what 
has been described as “the most successful socialist unity project in Europe”.

The split resulted from Sheridan’s court case 
against the ‘News of the World’. Whilst it was a 
‘sex scandal’ case centred on reports in this 
disreputable rag, the SSP leadership was 
effectively ‘on trial’. Eleven leading figures 
were subpoenaed to give evidence on the 
discussion which had taken place in the Party. 
Leading figures in the SSP gave contradictory 
versions of events. When Tommy Sheridan sacked 
his lawyers and took charge of his case he 
questioned these people and accused them of 
fabricating evidence against him. They insisted 
that they were telling the truth, which centred 
on whether or not he admitted, in a meeting of 
the SSP’s Executive Committee in 2004, attending 
the infamous ‘swingers’ club’ in Manchester.

Logically, if Sheridan was telling the truth, 
then the 11 leaders of the SSP were prepared to 
lie in court, inventing evidence to “fit him up”. 
If they were telling the truth, then Sheridan’s 
case was an incredibly reckless and cynical 
action which threatened to destroy the party he 
had played such a large part in building, in order to defend his “reputation”.

When you have two sides to an argument, telling 
different versions of events, and you weren’t at 
the meeting in question how can you possibly know 
who is telling the truth? This was the dilemma of 
socialists outside of Scotland, witnessing the 
crisis played out in court. How can you chart a 
course through these murky waters? All you can do 
is to examine the facts as you find them.

Full: http://makeashorterlink.com/?C333632ED