Last week Regar amazingly revealed that there was indeed an electoral agreement between the DP and the SNP prior to the National Assembly elections. After vehemently denying that such an agreement existed in the beginning of an article entitled “SNP rejects DP claims over MNA replacement” which appeared on page 2 of last week’s issue, the newspaper concluded “The SNP considers that the DP has been the first to discard the conditions of the agreement.”
By making this statement themselves, SNP has clearly capitulated and provided the DP with irrefutable admission that there was indeed an agreement between the two parties. This is the first indication that SNP has got a very weak case indeed and that DP was telling the truth when they alluded to such an agreement in their case filed before the Supreme Court two weeks ago. It remains to be seen whether their leader will be prepared to come to court and commit perjury or will tell the truth. Will the truth prevail? The DP leader, Paul Chow, says it is all he is asking for.
Regar’s article, which started dramatically enough, attempted to convince its readers that such an agreement does not exist at all in reality and that it is all in the DP leader’s fertile mind. The article stated “The SNP also totally rejects the DP leader’s claims that there was any contract which limited the right of the SNP leader in the Assembly. While there had been negotiations that the Assembly team would include a member of the DP, it was also the view of the SNP that the DP member would be under the direction of the SNP leader. The SNP cannot accept the DP’s claims that it is entitled to vote as it chooses in the Assembly. While some liberty may be allowed on some matters, the SNP feels it cannot operate in a situation where the DP can go its own way or change its stance on an issue after giving its commitment of support.”
What we have seen in the agreement, however, is different from what Regar says. Article 8 of the agreement reads “On any issue before the National Assembly, apart from those mentioned elsewhere in this document, the DP members shall be free to decide on how they will vote.”
But what is more significant and telling about the article is the confusion and contradiction inherent in it about the existence or non-existence of a contract between the two parties. Interestingly, this is in fact the only issue that the Court has to determine ultimately; that is, whether there was in fact an agreement between the two parties and if yes, what were the terms and conditions of the agreement.
SNP had been quite adamant that such an agreement does not exist when they stated in the paper last week: “What Mr. Chow has claimed is a signed contract does not exist.” By finally admitting that there was indeed an agreement in the concluding paragraph of the article SNP has clearly shot itself in the foot.
Any sensible person can now see that SNP is blowing hot and cold on the issue of the existence of the agreement and would have great difficulty convincing a judge that there was no agreement at all, if they cannot even convince their readers of that fact.