Any SF part in Robinson Nama claims may harm powersharing

The central question arising from the latest, rather astonishing, Nama allegations is who do you believe and, more precisely, who is telling the truth.

Sinn Féin insisted that departing North Antrim Assembly member Daithí McKay engaged in a "solo run" in allegedly colluding with the loyalist blogger and flags protester Jamie Bryson to make claims of financial wheeler-dealing against Peter Robinson in relation to Nama.

And senior Sinn Féin politicians such as Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness and former minister and current Chief Whip Carál Ni Chuilín were quick in making clear to McKay that he needed to fall on his sword, which he did.

But the story cannot and will not end there. A slew of politicians such as Sammy Wilson of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), Mike Nesbitt of the Ulster Unionist Party, Patsy McGlone of the SDLP, Dr Stephen Farry of Alliance and Jim Allister of the Traditional Unionist Voice party pointed out that, generally, Sinn Féin MLAs "don't do solo runs".

‘They do scapegoats’

SDLP leader Colum Eastwood went one better by saying that Sinn Féin "don't do lone wolves, they do scapegoats", appearing to suggest McKay is the sacrificial lamb for a bigger act of duplicity.

That’s the nub of it.

If this was a unilateral act of black arts politics by McKay, the former head of the Stormont finance committee, then this story eventually might drift away with the wind.

But should further evidence emerge of other, perhaps, more senior Sinn Féin personnel being involved in a conspiracy against Robinson, former leader of Sinn Féin’s major partner in the Northern Executive, then there has to be hell to pay.

Bryson is one of those leading the charge in relation to the controversy surrounding the £1.2 billion sale of Nama's huge Northern Ireland property portfolio to US investment giant Cerberus.

Last September he appeared before the Stormont finance committee, conveniently chaired by McKay, to allege that Robinson was to financially gain from an alleged £7 million “kickback” as a result of that sale.

In some neat choreography involving a republican and a loyalist, McKay allegedly was involved in “coaching” Bryson on how he should deliver his statement to the committee and how he might implicate Robinson before McKay would be obliged to silence him under committee protocols.

In Twitter transcripts obtained by the Irish News and BBC Radio Ulster's Stephen Nolan Show, McKay allegedly put Bryson in touch with another Sinn Féin member who advised him on how he could name Robinson without being interrupted or cut short.

The ruse was to refer to a “Person A”, and then in the wind-up name that person as the then first minister Peter Robinson. Which is what happened.

What must be stressed is that Bryson made an allegation against Robinson, but he did not deliver any proof. Furthermore, Robinson trenchantly dismissed the Bryson allegation as “scurrilous and unfounded”.

Bryson and McKay denied this was an exercise in “coaching”, but the transcripts would appear to deny that assertion.

Which brings us back to the key question of who to believe.

Sinn Féin’s main defence is a reasonable one: would the party be so stupid as to have any central party dealings with Jamie Bryson?

Certainly, it seems that McKay was so prepared, but does the conspiracy go further within the party? One senior Sinn Féin source made the case that trusting Bryson would be the height of folly. He is a habitual blogger and tweeter and, based on his involvement in the loyalist flags protest, has a reputation as a man who shoots from the lip.

On that characterisation of Bryson, the Sinn Féin source said, “If you were going to leak anything or work with anybody in a planned way it wouldn’t be Jamie Bryson. It just reeks of stupidity, a bad idea badly done.”

The same source added that if Sinn Féin was involved in a grander act of perfidy against Robinson, it wouldn’t have left a Twitter trail. Furthermore, he added, Sinn Féin made a point of not attacking Robinson during the Nama saga because “we did not need to do it”.

No advantage

By that he meant that by September last year, Sinn Féin knew Robinson was about to bow out as DUP leader and first minister and that there would be no advantage in going after him.

Moreover, it needs to be stated that at that stage, Sinn Féin and the DUP were in the middle of efforts to strike a deal to safeguard Stormont which culminated in the Fresh Start Agreement of last November.

These are reasonable arguments, but the equally reasonable counter-thrust from numerous politicians was that such is the internal discipline and political culture within Sinn Féin that it seems to defy political logic and experience that McKay would embark on such a solo run.

And while Sinn Féin might contend it had no reason to target Robinson, is it not just basic political instinct to seek to damage your opponent?

It’s like the old fable of the frog who hesitantly brings the scorpion across the river on his back believing that he won’t sting him because then they would both die. Still, half way across the scorpion stings him, dooming them both, and when the frog asks why the scorpion says, “It’s just my nature.”

If there is proof that this was Sinn Féin acting, then the DUP-Sinn Féin dominated Executive could be in trouble. Both are hard-nosed pragmatic parties, but for powersharing to work there has to be a strong element of mutual trust.

If this matter is established as a larger Sinn Féin plot, then that trust could break down. So far though the only evidence is against McKay and if the story remains that way then Stormont could emerge bruised but still standing from yet another crisis.