LIKE many, I read The National on January 27 detailing the allegedly punitive costs that Alistair Carmichael is reported to be seeking against the Orkney Four.

As a voter, I loathe Mr Carmichael’s conduct and lie. But strangely I also worry for him.

If he is seeking to punish the financial souls of those who stood up for the electorate, he is on very thin ice. If he is really seeking the reported £150,000 expenses then he has sown the seeds of his utter downfall.

How so? Anyone can read the official Election Court Determination of December 9, 2015 as handed down by Lady Paton and Lord Matthews.

There are vitally important elements within this document. The lords are unequivocal and I quote both of them:

“[61] On this issue, we are satisfied that it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the first respondent (Alistair Carmichael) made the false statement of fact for the purpose of affecting (positively) his own return at the election.”

However, in the narrow and most proper strictures of the statute informing this specific case a seemingly paradoxical result ensued:

“Conclusion [71] For the reasons given above, we refuse the prayer of the petition.

“We give our determination in terms of section 144 and section 158 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 as follows: the first respondent (Carmichael) has not been proved to have committed an illegal practice in terms of section 106 of that Act.”

This may seem very dry language, but the Devil is very much in the detail and this will have profound consequences for everyone with an interest in this matter.

The recently concluded case is based on an alleged criminal infraction of statute. The burden of proof there is “beyond reasonable doubt”.

As anyone involved in criminal prosecution, and I write from professional training and experience at court, this can be a very difficult level of proof to satisfy.

Given the recent revelations of juicy expense-chasing by Carmichael and co, there is now could be a new round of litigation against this MP.

Not on criminal grounds, but on civil law. Where the level of proof required is in “the balance of probability”.

Based on the official determination by Lady Paton and Lord Matthews it is clear that the judges regard Carmichael as a liar.

First time around, Mr Carmichael’s legal team pulled the rabbit out of the hat, getting their client off the hook because of the level of proof required under the Representation of the People Act 1983.

With due respect, Mr Carmichael would be well advised to consider if he, as a proven liar in the eyes and judgment of Scotland’s senior law lords, might escape legal censure a second time – if, or when, new litigation is commenced against him under civil law where the burden of proof is in the balance of probability.

Democracy in Scotland has already been insulted by an exposed liar being elected for the Northern Isles in May 2015.

It would be a double disgrace if the proven dishonesty of Alistair Carmichael allowed four honourable voters in Orkney to be bankrupted just to pay the legal bill of this dishonest MP and ex-lawyer. Russ McLean Carnoustie

DAVID Stephenson (Letters, The National 27 January) quite rightly castigates as “perverse” the argument that we should vote for the EU simply in order to hasten independence. However, his analysis of the problems and failures of the EU suffer from what Lenin referred to as “an infantile disorder”. He argues that socialists adopt an ultra-left rejection of the EU because it is “no friend” to workers.

TTIP is a massive threat to public services throughout Europe. It has been discussed in secret with the intention of avoiding public scrutiny. If passed it will, as David says, shift economic power even further from democratic control into the hands of the rich and powerful in what is effectively an act of class war. It is also true that the Troika imposed debt colonialism on Greece not primarily for economic reasons, but as a threat to those in other European countries organising to resist the EU austerity consensus.

But David is profoundly wrong when he argues that because of these anti-working-class policies, socialists must support Brexit in the forthcoming referendum. Being in or out of the EU is not a matter of principle for socialists. Surely we have to make a judgment on how best we can defend our interests as working people and move towards a fairer, more equal and more just society?

As Carolyn Leckie argued recently in this newspaper, the exit argument will be shaped by mainstream politicians, their media friends and business backers pursuing a hard right racist British nationalism.

David ignores the fact that resistance to TTIP and other pro-business policies has been building throughout Europe in recent years. Hundreds of thousands of people joined demonstrations in Brussels, Berlin and other EU capitals during the autumn. Grass-roots solidarity and collective organisation is the way to defeat austerity and TTIP.

In what way would a hard right-wing UK Government, triumphant from its successful Brexit vote protect our public services from TTIP?

How would such a government make it easier for socialists in Scotland or the rest of the UK to build solidarity with those resisting the Troika in Greece, Spain and Portugal? Especially as none of the significant organisations leading the fight in those countries are calling for exit.

The EU may be no friend of workers but socialists can’t ignore the political context in which they find themselves. We can’t just wish away our weaknesses. A vote to leave risks not just workers’ jobs, workplace rights and living standards in Scotland; it risks undermining the fight against austerity throughout Europe. Craig Lewis Glasgow

I CAN understand why the relatives of the bin lorry crash wish to pursue their claim in the high court. They are hurting and everyone seems to have got away with, what was for them, a crime of murder.

The crime though, if it could be described as such, is one of omission. Harry Clarke’s life would have been in tatters had he admitted his medical problems to his new employers, so he didn’t. Small beer at the time which became a tragic omission.

The important question is whether or not the relevant authorities have a trustworthy system in place now, which does not rely upon an applicants veracity.

If they have not, then should ever an incident of this nature occur again, the directorate and management should be found culpable and dealt with in law accordingly.

Our thoughts are with those families but surely Harry has suffered enough. Christopher Bruce Address supplied

REGARDING the the current national anthem debate in England, I would like to add that in abolishing the monarchy and the House of Lords the dreary God Save the Queen would become obsolete.

England could adopt Jerusalem or even Land of Hope and Glory as its anthem. England should rejoice in its Englishness and indeed celebrate St George’s Day as the Scots, Welsh and Irish celebrate their saint’s days.

And in an independent Scotland maybe a song along the lines of the superb Burns world anthem A Man’s a Man could replace Flower Of Scotland. Grant Frazer Newtonmore

WHEN living in Jamaica I discovered an aphorism that I retained in my chapbook.

It is possibly derived from the Spanish Afro-Cuban culture: “To die one must die three times; the first is when the breath stops, the second is the burial and the third is when you have been forgotten and no-one speaks your name anymore”.

Well, after another Robert Burns season we can be assured that Burns still lives on, not just in Scotland but around the globe.

However, there is still a major gap in the cultural memory of Robert Burns – the absence of a major film about him.

The societal context provides substantial creative opportunities: the movement away from hereditary privilege and the rise of capitalism while the Scottish Enlightenment offered intellectual energy.

Surely we have the talent and the resources to produce a major film on the life of Burns.

The BBC with its expertise (and budgets) in mounting substantial historical dramas (just what is the budget for War and Peace?) is a fall-back option.

“Now’s the time and now’s the hour.” Thom Cross Carluke