What a difference a day makes
Bit late with the blog today. As you may have discerned, things have been a little hectic here at Holyrood.
Parliament going on fire didn't help. (Small conflagration, no damage, no injuries.)
Fire aside, the fuss was caused by . Holyrood's standards committee reckons she should be suspended - for one day - as a rebuke for breaking the rules re the register of interests.
You'll find the substance elsewhere on this site. But, in essence, the committee decided she should have declared donations to her leadership campaign.
I suspect you'll have your own views on this. I suspect, further, that you won't be slow in declaring said views.
But herewith a few points. Counsel for the defence would say that Ms Alexander sought and obtained written guidance from parliamentary clerks to the effect that she didn't require to declare the donations as they weren't personal gifts.
Counsel for the prosecution would say that she should have over-complied. She should have declared the donations, regardless.
Wide open
Further - and importantly - by the time she sought advice, she was already in breach because she had exceeded the time limit.
Counsel for the defence says this is a politically motivated smear campaign. Counsel for the prosecution says Wendy Alexander left herself wide open to attack because of slipshod organisation and law-breaking (the Jersey donation.)
Counsel for the defence says the Parliamentary clerks took legal advice before guiding Ms Alexander.
Counsel for the prosecution says that is trumped by the ruling from the standards commissioner, Dr Jim Dyer. He said the donations should have been declared because they would be viewed as tantamount to gifts.
Keith Brown, the standards committee convener, professed himself torn between these competing views.
He said there was a definite breach. But there were "mitigating circumstances" in that Ms Alexander had sought advice from the clerks. In his view, the timing issue was key.
Committee balance
The committee divided on party lines. The SNP, the Tories and the LibDems backed the verdict. On the suggested sentence, the SNP and the LibDems backed suspension.
The Tories abstained, arguing that sanctions were in appropriate.
It now goes to the full parliament - in September, because Holyrood had risen for the summer recess by the time the committee ruled. They could overturn the recommendation.
But, if the chamber matches the committee balance, if the Tories abstain, then the suspension would go through.
I'm 
Comments
or to comment.