HAD Frenchgate been a boxing match, the Orkney Four would have scored a points victory over Alistair Carmichael, their self-confessed liar of an MP.
The Liberal Democrat authorised his special adviser to leak the now infamous – but incorrect – memo that claimed Nicola Sturgeon told the French Ambassador she would prefer David Cameron to remain in Downing Street.
Carmichael admitted lying about his knowledge of the memo and even confessed that he had been less than fully truthful with the Cabinet Office inquiry into it.
He somehow seems to think it is more than enough for him apologise and to relinquish his ministerial severance payment before carrying on regardless.
Lady Paton and Lord Matthews found there was no dispute that Carmichael had told “a blatant lie” when he said in a Channel 4 interview that he only became aware of the memo when contacted by a journalist.
But they found that the petitioners had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the lie was personal, rather than political.
What is the difference, we are entitled to ask.
Well, because Carmichael did not expressly utter: “I regard the practice of leaking confidential information as dishonest and morally reprehensible,” and simply implied it by claiming he was unaware of the memo, he did not falsely portray himself to the public as honest and trustworthy, when he was not.
However, it appears to us that by making “a false statement” that he was unaware of the memo, Carmichael did falsely portray himself as such.
The judges were far from impressed by the quality of Carmichael’s evidence: “We are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the false statement of fact was made for the purpose of affecting (positively) the return of the first respondent [Carmichael] as a Liberal Democrat in the constituency of Orkney and Shetland.”
They also found another reason for the lie: “Thus on the basis of all the evidence led before us we are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that another purpose underlying the false statement was self-protection (a self-protection extending to Mr Roddin [Carmichael’s special adviser], provided that neither of them could be identified).”
Turning to the official inquiry, the judges found: “It is our opinion that his failure to be straightforward and candid with the inquiry resulted from his hope that he would not be identified as being involved in the leak – preferably not identified at all, but at least not identified until after the election on May 7 2015, as otherwise his chances of electoral success might be prejudicially affected.”
The Orkney Four – now faced with a massive legal bill and a hearing over costs – are still pressing Carmichael to do the decent thing and resign to fight a by-election.
Highlands and Islands Green MSP John Finnie said: “A lie is a lie,” and suggested the MP should consider quitting to face a by-election where his constituents are full possession of the facts.
However, Carmichael is unlikely to heed any plea for him to show a shred of decency, despite the clamour from around Scotland and beyond, evidenced by the ever-rising total of the Orkney Four’s crowdfunding pot.
We say again that he should go sooner rather than later.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here