Thursday, June 21, 2012

On Corroboration

I am indebted to The Big Lad for this rather discombobulating post.

Prior to devolution, the offices and roles of both the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland were very clearly understood and defined. They were political roles, held by politicians, whereas their most recent holders seem to have been recruited from the civil service. If they are now to be considered civil service appointments, I am not in the least interested in any view on any matter of policy held by their occupiers, and much less in hearing any such view. In my humble opinion they should shut up, get on with their work, be grateful for the wages that go into the bank and ensure they don't draw too much attention to themselves.

If the requirement for corroboration were to be attacked in the same way that virtually every other protection from persecution enjoyed by the citizen in Scotland has been or is being attacked, then Scotland can be considered as being even further down the slide than it is already.



Blogger Robert Black said...

Here's what I said on The Lockerbie Case blog when Frank Mulholland was appointed Lord Advocate:
"This appointment is not unexpected, but it is to be regretted. Virtually the whole of Frank Mulholland's career has been spent as a Crown Office civil servant. This is not, in my view, the right background for the incumbent of the office of Lord Advocate, one of whose functions has traditionally been to bring an outsider's perspective to the operations and policy-making of the department. Sir Humphrey Appleby was an outstanding civil servant of a particular kind, but his role was an entirely different one from that of Jim Hacker and no-one would have regarded it as appropriate that he should be translated from Permanent Secretary of the Department of Administrative Affairs to Minister (or, indeed, from Secretary of the Cabinet to Prime Minister).

"The appointment by the previous Labour administration in Scotland of Elish Angiolini as Solicitor General and then as Lord Advocate was a mistake, both constitutionally and practically, as was her retention as Lord Advocate by the SNP minority government (though the political reasons for her re-appointment were understandable). It is sad that the new majority SNP Government has not taken the opportunity to return to the wholly desirable convention of appointing an advocate or solicitor from private practice to fill the office of Lord Advocate. The much-needed casting of a beady eye over the operations of the Crown Office is not to be expected from this appointee. This is deeply regrettable since such scrutiny is long overdue."

22 June, 2012 12:01  
Blogger Martin said...

To use a form of words I don't get much chance to utter these days, Professor, I'm obliged.

22 June, 2012 22:13  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home