History will be judge

BECAUSE the matter is sub judice, it is not possible at this stage to fully respond to John Wight's intemperate tirade against the Scottish Socialist Party (M Star August 14). His letter says more about the madness underpinning the split in the SSP engineered by Tommy Sheridan than it does about the SSP itself.

Is John Wight seriously suggesting that the SSP should have refused to co-operate with a police investigation into perjury, when 11 members of the SSP executive were being denounced in the media as "perjurers" after Tommy Sheridan's libel case - not least by Sheridan himself, who received £30,000 from a tabloid newspaper for making the accusation?

Following the libel case, Lord Turnbull ordered an investigation into both sides, making the point that one side or other was lying. Naturally, those witnesses falsely accused of perjury will fight to clear their name.

Wouldn't John Wight do the same if he faced false accusations and the prospect of a lengthy jail sentence or is he just playing politics with other people's lives? And why does he single out the SSP for attack? Why does he fail to mention Tommy Sheridan, who welcomed the police investigation at the outset and has guaranteed his full co-operation?

Is John Wight seriously suggesting that it is acceptable for Tommy Sheridan to co-operate with the police - presumably by repeating his accusations that the SSP leadership plotted against him, fabricated evidence, perverted the course of justice and committed perjury - but taboo for SSP members to defend themselves against these accusations?

John Wight is close to the mark but not quite accurate when he suggests that perjury can carry a sentence of up nine years imprisonment.

In fact, under Scots law, there is no limit to the sentence that can be imposed. This is precisely why, from 2004 onwards, when John Wight was living in Hollywood pursuing his personal ambitions of fame and glory, the SSP leadership tried repeatedly to dissuade Tommy from his kamikaze court action.

Unlike the splinter group Solidarity, the SSP has avoided seeking to draw external organisations and individuals into this sorry affair and has concentrated on building support for those in the front line in campaigns over pay, public services, jobs and peace.

But we cannot and will not tolerate the spreading of malevolent half-truths by people like John Wight, who was only ever a member of the SSP for a short period of time before splitting away with Solidarity, which he then subsequently abandoned.

As the philosopher Hegel once said, history is the most terrifying judge of all. Whatever the outcome of the current legal proceedings, members of the SSP will always be able to look themselves in a mirror with a clear conscience.

ALAN McCOMBES
Glasgow