A PETITION is expected to be lodged at the Court of Session in Edinburgh today in a bid to overturn the election result in Alistair Carmichael’s Orkney and Shetland constituency.
The action is being brought by The People Versus Carmichael, a non-political group in Orkney, whose members say they want to hold the former Scottish Secretary “accountable for his behaviour before, during and after the election campaign”.
A crowdfunding bid to raise money to finance the action had reached £40,000 last night – £20,000 short of its target. However, The National understands that several members of the legal profession have offered their services to the group free of charge.
Fiona Macinnes, a Kirkwall resident who launched the funding bid, told The National yesterday: “We thought the petition would be delivered today, but there have been all sorts of delays getting signatures and making sure everything is correct. We’ve also had to sort out the logistics of getting the actual document down to Edinburgh and we have a legal firm there ready to present it at the Court of Session.”
The row surrounding the LibDem MP’s leaking of a memo suggesting Nicola Sturgeon wanted David Cameron to win the election has refused to die.
A former colleague of Carmichael’s – David Ward, the ex-LibDem MP for Bradford East – triggered a minor spat on social media. He lost his seat to Labour’s Imran Hussain, and tweeted: “If I lived in #OrkneyandShetlands would I fire a rocket at #AlistairCarmichael? – probably yes.”
One response read: “You should definitely rethink what you said. If you still think the same when you conclude. Leave the party!”
And Scottish LibDem campaigner Sanjay Samani said: “What a shame David isn’t an MP anymore to be the beacon of integrity of our party.”
In other developments the Shetland branch of the SNP responded to an open letter from the apolitical “We the People of Shetland”, who have said a by-election is necessary so the matter “does not drag on and become divisive within our community”.
Branch convener Robbie McGregor wrote: “I believe in second chances, but they must be freely given and in my view Mr Carmichael can only be given one by successfully winning an honest, open and fair election.
“The electorate deserves a second chance as well as Mr Carmichael. I consider that an election is the political equivalent of a job interview.
“If any one of Mr Carmichael’s constituents were to tell a lie of this severity they would undoubtedly lose their job. There should not be one rule for politicians and another for the general public. I would like to ask the leaders of the parties who have expressed a view that they are against a by-election to explain why.”
McGregor concluded: “I urge that this matter be brought to a satisfactory conclusion as soon as possible. We need effective representation in Parliament and an opportunity to reunite the community.”
On the Scottish Legal News website James Chalmers, regius professor of law at Glasgow University, analysed what The People Versus Carmichael would have to do to be successful.
He said: “The petitioners don’t have to prove that the result might have been different as a result of Carmichael’s statement – although that might not be difficult to do anyway given that he was elected with a relatively small majority.”
“They have to prove that he made a false statement of fact. This requirement should present little difficulty. Carmichael said he knew nothing of the minute regarding Nicola Sturgeon’s meeting with the French ambassador, and now acknowledges this is not the case.”
Chalmers added that the “statement of fact” had to be in relation to a candidate, which could prove trickier to prove than it seems, and it also had to be about the candidate’s “personal character or conduct”.
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