Grave times for Alexander
Wendy Alexander has now personally, for the illegal donation accepted by her party.
She has returned the unlawful cheque to the Electoral Commission.
But, at the moment, that鈥檚 as far as it goes.
Once more today, she declined to take questions from the media, arguing that it was now up to the Electoral Commission to decide how to progress the matter.
So does it end there? No. Simply no.
The commission may decide to alert the police on the grounds that an illegal act has been committed. If they don鈥檛, others might lodge a complaint.
Further, Labour might yet be obliged to set out full details of the donations which comprised the 拢17,000 raised for the campaign.
Further still, if any more problems emerge from those other donations, then the challenge to Ms Alexander鈥檚 leadership moves from grave to critical.
PS: I don鈥檛 commonly respond to individual issues raised in responses to this blog, preferring to let the debate flow. However, if you鈥檒l excuse me, I鈥檒l respond to one.
DCW suggests I said the donations were 鈥渇ine鈥. That is simply untrue. I said no such thing.
On the lunchtime bulletin, I said that Labour had failed at that stage to provide sufficient answers. On later bulletins, as the story developed, I said - repeatedly and bluntly - that the party had broken the law.
I'm 
Comments
Brian
One of the things that amaze me about this whole affair is, just what is the position of the Lib Dems on all of this.
Nicol Stephen is usually good for a quote at the opening of an envelope, but he is turning his Nelsons eye to this one.
I know they have a pact but they must have a position when the law has been broken. Their head office in London is not so reticent.
Well if I took your remarks out of context then I unreservedly apologise. I didn't quote you as I wasn't certain of the exact phrasing but I did take that to be the meaning (perhaps I could say I acted in 'good faith'?) of what you were saying. I wasn't the only one either as comments on a Scottish newspaper's message board indicate. On your word, however, I will accept that was not the case and retract what I said.
I hope, though, that you will understand, and perhaps even share, my underlying frustration with what is happening in Holyrood (and for that matter Westminster); one which isn't motivated at all by party partisanship but simply and honestly borne out of a desire to see our country rise above the culture of corruption and seemingly shameless disregard for the rule of law displayed by our elected (and unelected) representatives.
The unedifying spectacle of politcal leaders hiding behind their hired helpers may be a oft-repeated one, but when it relates to such far-ranging issues as local governance, planning applications, party funding et al surely, for the good of our political system as a whole and for the people of Scotland specifically, it's time for those with fingers pointed at them to stand up, accept responsibility and be accountable.
And surely it is also time for all of Scotland's media outlets to set their allegiances to one side, and report the news as it should be told, factually, boldly, and backed up with strong investigative analysis. Do you see that in today's media? Really? I have to say I don't. Last night's radio was concerned more with a pie making competition than this potentially massive story, the rammifications of which could play a part in changing the political landscape of Scotland and the UK forever.
Again, and I call on your employers to take the lead on this, let's see real journalism in Scotland! Gordon Brown would never have been let off so lightly from the UK press as Wendy Alexander has from the Scottish, had his handling of such a story been so hideously inept. The behaviour of her, and her party, shows contempt both to the people of Scotland, and specifically to you and your colleagues, who she clearly views as little more than party line-towing pushovers. Please, Brian - stand up to her, and stand up for Scotland!
Last night on Newsnight, Tom McCabe repeated claimed that he and Wendy Alexander were told the donation was from a Glasgow company. Today we find Wendy Alexander sent a personal letter of thanks to Paul Green. Did she address the letter of thanks to an address in the Channel Islands I wonder?
It seems as if Labour is being forced to reveal detail after detail, entirely unwillingly. How on earth can anyone who has been implicated in an illegal act, aimed at supporting a leadership campaign, claim any legitimate authority to lead?
If Alexander, McCabe, Whitton et al had any integrity, would they not fall on their swords? Are we in danger of running out of swords?
That's the stuff Brian! Now we're talking - seems like the real probing is under way. Keep it up please.
And if I took your remarks out of context then I unreservedly apologise. I didn't quote you as I wasn't certain of the exact phrasing but I did take that to be the meaning (perhaps I could say I acted in 'good faith'?) of what you were saying. I wasn't the only one either as comments on a Scottish newspaper's message board indicate. On your word, however, I will accept that was not the case and retract what I said.
Maybe one big long sword would do, they could all fall on it like one big Scottish Labour shish-kebab!
Salad and sauce?
I really enjoy your blog.
Political 'spin' and 'mistakes'.
Too much spin, too many mistakes.
now too many excuses......
Politicians appear to be only out for themselves. Do they care about the voter/taxpayer.....
Do politicians not realise that they are destroying trust the ordinary public have in the electoral system,
if indeed there is any trust left....
fair enough she has apologised, we all make mistakes dont we? What i dont get is that today a very positive move was made by labour in her announcements preceding her public apology. I am shocked you have not blogged on this, or there is little news relaing to it
Wendy Alexander and other Labour party members have at best witnessed a crime, they are duty bound to report this matter regardless of who commited the offence, on the other hand Wendy alexander may be part of this crime with other Labour party members.
As leader of this party, the buck stops with you !
The donation was illegal under laws that Labour introduced.
Wendy is the leader of Labour in Scotland. The money was raised on her behalf - not knowing is not a defence in law.
The donation has been deemed illegal and if any one outside politics did this the 'boys in blue' would be round feeling our collars.
Why should Wendy and her cronies be handled any differently?
If we really want integrity in Scottish politics then the people of Scotland should be seeking the culprits identified to stand down as MSPs, including Ms Alexander.
I don't think anyone doubts your integrity Brian.
Straying from the literary bent just a little, cue Elvis:
"Return to sender, address unknown..."
It appears that there are two laws in Scotland one for the common people and another for politicians and elected officials, this can not be right, if the law has been broken then its the duty of the police to arrest the law breakers.
Our soldiers are in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting for democracy, can our police force do any less.
where is the leadership in the labour party .G BROWN W.ALEXANDERboth do not know what is going on undre there leadership.
where do they think the money is coming from.santa.
This whole saga encapsulates the New Labour project - spending money they don't have on something that wasn't needed (she was unopposed, after all).
It is established that an illegal act has taken place yet the police are seemingly awaiting the Electoral Commission, or an individual, or an individuals dog, to report it to them.
They should be investigating as of now as impartial upholders of the law - they are not supposed to have deferential rules for the political classes.
I write as someone who supports none of the parties at Holyrood, but rather wonder at how the term "good faith" has been bandied about in reams of self justification and avoidance of responsibilty of what was an illlegal act.
The role of donors legally should also be examined - they are not exactly uneducated fools and surely have some culpability for their donations - they all have lawyers on their company books don't they?
As with events in England what is shocking is that rules on donations seem to be something to be manoeuvred around by both donor and recipient. The only fail safe is that every donation is recorded and anonymous donations are given to charity, and recorded.
Can it be easily believed that other parties are pristine in act themselves (and hats off to them if they are) - money seems to have a most corruptive influence!