Wenday Alexander has been reported to the local Procurator FIscal (the local prosecutor) over a failure to declare election expenses within the Parliament, while we await news of the position regarding the Electoral Commission and her donation from Jersey.
On the latter issue Wendy’s defence is that she did not knowingly breach the rules believing that the donation came from a Scottish c mpany rather than a private individual. I posted a comment on Alastair’s blog last night that I have some concerns about this defence.
A central idea behind the use of companies is that companies have separate legal personality and are by law required a registered number, and to be adequately identified in correspondence and payments (otherwise individual signatories are personally liable). Wendy’s defence is that she did not knowingly accept a donation from a Jersey donor because she thought the donation was from his company in Scotland. This only washes if (a) the cheque was from the company; and (b) the letter was from the company. If the company is not mentioned as the sender or donor in the correspondence (as seems to be the case given that Wendy has admitted that her reply was sent personally to a private address) I find it difficult to see how someone can argue that they did not know it was from the purported sender, because they thought it was from a company the person was related to.
Anyway, while we anticipate the Electoral Commission report – which all journos seem to believe will not refer matters onwards (although I wouldn’t be too sure for the reasons given above) – how about a caption competition.
So, your captions please for