The other explanation [for the Party sacking Sheridan] is that the SSP has become afflicted by the divisive germ that seems to destroy all far-left parties eventually. It’s an old story. Small-minded people with big ideas about themselves allow personal jealousy and resentment to cloud their political judgement. No longer prepared to walk in Sheridan’s shadow, and convinced his celebrity was somehow unsocialist, they subjected their leader to a kind of witch-hunt.

…In sacking him, the SSP are in danger of sacking themselves. According to John Curtice of Strathclyde University, the SSP needs only to lose 1% of its vote at the next election to lose all its MSPs. Except Tommy. He will likely go from strength to strength as an independent MSP in a parliament where individualism is seen as a political virtue.

Backing up the suspicion that it’s the old lefty malaise - splitters! - to blame is another Sunday Herald report, featuring some rather peculiar doublethink from SSP policy coordinator (and, if I remember rightly, SSP cofounder) Alan McCombes, who apparently believes that Sheridan is both telling the truth, albeit ‘in his own terms’, and also ‘building a tower of lies’ in his legal dealings with the murky Murdoch press. The piece also confirms earlier suspicions that it was Sheridan’s insitence on that legal action that cost him his job. There was more graceless talk last week, too, this time from long-time Sheridan ally Frances Curran, who tied herself in knots on Newsnight trying to avoid even hinting that she supported her old pal.

I don’t know if Iain Macwhirter’s gloomy assesment is on the money or not. I’d like to think that the SSP’s recent electoral success isn’t just down to them, until recently, having a nice man with a tan to go on the telly. But then Sheridan, as I said before, just plain is the Party for most people outside it. So, assuming Sheridan will remain safely ensconced in Parliament as an independent¹, while his former colleagues flounder too long under collective leadership (sorry, convenorship), the outlook for the Party could be pretty bleak. Though, to be fair, Alan McCombes, talking more sensibly to the Guardian this time, is probably right to suggest that it’s wrong to see Sheridan’s departure as an absolute disaster, and to argue that folk do vote ‘for the message not the messenger’ (He doesn’t say that a bit of chaos is the norm in the Party, and their refusal to run a tight ‘on message’ ship endears them to voters more than their sometimes shambolic ways puts them off, another reason why the scandal and its mishandling might not be as bad for them as it currently appears to be).

However this mess ends - and there’s talk of more revalations in the papers in the coming week - the whole situation is very depressing, brothers and sisters, very depressing indeed.

1 - See the comments for clarification of this point. As Alister Black points out, there is no suggestion at present that Sheridan will leave the SSP.

A source within the party confirmed that the Glasgow MSP had quit for personal rather than political reasons.

Mr Sheridan tendered his resignation to the party’s ruling body, the national executive, and it was accepted.

BBC Scotland political correspondent Glenn Campbell said Mr Sheridan, whose wife is expecting a baby, was keen to shed the SSP’s image as a one-man band.

Nominations are now open for the position of leading the party, which has six seats in the Scottish Parliament.

It’ll be interesting to see what impact this has on the SSP’s fortunes. For most of the voting public, Sheridan is the SSP, and I doubt anyone in the Party would deny that his public profile, and the fact that he’s a consumate charmer, was a significant vote-winner for them. I suspect that, as alluded to above, this one-man band image was bound to become something of a liability, and in the long run, losing Sheridan might not be as damaging as it first appears.

(Talking of image, Sheridan’s roots are in the Militant Tendency, and I’ve long wondered why these Trots, especially the younger Liverpool council lot, were always so well turned out, adopting the perma-tanned, sharp-suited, gold-chained look to a man.)

It’ll also be interesting to see whether, as is rumoured, a certain gutter tabloid will run the story that is, allegedly, the real reason behind his decision to step down - Sheridan has dismissed these rumours, in fine style, as “pish.”

Update: I haven’t been paying attention, it seems. My old friend Louise Baillie broke the sex scandal back in October, in a News Of The World blind item that begins, LUSTY News of the World sex columnist Anvar Khan has told how she had a kinky fling with a married Scots politician. The busty 37-year-old revealed how the mystery MSP liked to be SPANKED, enjoyed ROMPING at swingers’ parties and even asked her to arrange a THREESOME. The piece goes on to say that Khan and the mystery man got drunk together, which, since Sheridan is a well-known teetotaller, makes me wonder.

Update (15/11/04): This is turning out to be quite the murky story. It looks like Sheridan’s days in the SSP were numbered, and, in this Sunday Herald report, it seems the source of the scandal is the SSP itself, and that Sheridan was sacked over concerns at his handling of this story, and his media profile in general:

A source went further: “I don’t know why Tommy spun the tale about resigning, because it was always going to unravel. It was a very difficult decision to take, but not a single member flinched from it. We voted for him to stand down as convener of the party. It is accurate to say that he was sacked.”

If he hadn’t resigned, the Sunday Herald understands that the executive would have put information into the public domain to force his resignation.

In a Herald piece, meanwhile, Sheridan sees the intrigue as a sign of maturity in his party:

“We have the same intrigue and black arts going on as in other parties now, so maybe we’ve arrived as a party,” he says. “Maybe there are some people who want to undermine me so they can undermine somebody else who takes over in the party – in other words, if Tommy Sheridan is undermined, will that undermine the person thought likely to take over within the party?”

(So infighting, factionalism and - how you say? - splitters are meant to be a new thing in the SSP, Tommy? The party has more platforms than Glasgow Central!)

Interestingly, Scotland on Sunday report that plans may be afoot to replace Tommy with, well, everyone else, with the SSP opting for collective leadership, rather than continue with the frankly fascistic policy of appointing a ‘leader.’ Whatever, it doesn’t look like Sheridan will quietly fade away, what with his plans to take legal action against the NOTW.

More on this to follow, no doubt.