Bonnington acknowledged that he and his fellow law students “have failed miserably to make our teaching of democracy understandable,” concluding by saying, “I fear we have to accept that we have not taught our student, Nicola Sturgeon, much. If we look at the very large number of hours that witnesses feel are spent on preparation, it becomes virtually impossible to conclude that this legal advice was of a very limited nature that is permitted. While Gretna FC (see Nos. 592 and 682) languishes in relegation problems in the Scottish Premier League, one of the politicians who have invoked the team`s good reputation in a legal context suffers from his own danger of degradation. In August 2006, Tommy Sheridan, a former Scottish socialist and Solidarity MP, won a defamation case against News of the World (see No. 587). Despite assurances from Alistair Bonnington, who has already been described in these columns as a challenger to the No. 1 position of public controversy in Scottish law” (see Nos. 583 and 602), this established wisdom, which is followed almost everywhere in the constitutional structure of democracies, has no place in Scotland, according to Ms Sturgeon.
Their vision of an unfettered legislature is surprising given Scotland`s political history. After all, it may well legalize the murder of Roman Catholics, as the sectarian Scottish legal claim of 1688 does anyway. It is worth remembering that Scotland has no history of democracy of its own. The Scots clearly supported the dictatorial Stuart kings in the War of the Three Kingdoms. They fought Cromwell`s Republican army at Dunbar in 1650, despite the Lord Protector`s offer of peace if they “thought again”. After betting on the wrong horse, the Scots abolished their own corrupt parliament in 1652 and began bringing Scottish MPs back to Westminster, only to leave that democratic system again after 1660. Democracy has always been a “law on the other side of the border” for Scotland. Perhaps this story could explain why Ms.
Sturgeon did not understand what democracy really means today. The members of the committee seem to have worked very hard in carrying out their duties. But without a lawyer, not even a legal expert to support them, they have no chance of getting to the bottom of this sinister case. The revolving door system is simply pathetic to many witnesses. The witness testifies; The committee later determined that this was absurd and therefore remembered that witness – in some cases more than once. Ofcom may decide to open an investigation into the allegations of the former honorary professor of law at the University of Glasgow. He also complained directly to the BBC. Another curious part of this procedure is the legal approach of James Wolffe, the Lord Advocate. He appeared before the committee and claimed that it would be a crime for anyone who produced documentary productions (originals or copies) of the criminal proceedings against Mr Salmond and would be prosecuted for it. Mr. Salmond says he must have some of these documents to testify.
As a result, he delayed appearing before the committee. Now, I would not claim to have the erudition of Mr. Wolffe. But I have never heard of such a rule of law. The criminal proceedings have been concluded and cannot be reopened. What crime can a legally constituted parliamentary inquiry commit when these documents are consulted, which must be relevant to the work of the committee in all respects, not just that of Mr Salmond? He cites the fact that the notice was legal advice as a reason for refusing to disclose details other than the cost of the notice. Professor Tim Luckhurst, a former BBC editor who now works at Durham University, has revealed that separatist sympathies run deep in Pacific Quay`s editorial office. I am afraid we will have to accept that we have failed to teach our student Nicola Sturgeon much about democracy. But I am comforted by the words of traditional Scottish legal learning, which says that we qualified professionals need to teach boys only “to the extent that they are able to learn”. This decision to keep the criminal productions secret has nothing to do with the identification of the plaintiffs in the Salmond trial. It`s easy to do. This is something I can pretend to know.
I have advised the BBC and many newspapers for years, and simple editing techniques will solve this problem. Therefore, this cannot be used as an excuse to refuse these documents to the committee. The Prime Minister`s initial assurance that her government would do everything in its power to support the inquiry turned out to be an empty promise. The all-too-obvious truth is that their government has made Herculean efforts to thwart them at every turn. For us lawyers, of course, the most absurd aspect was the assertion by Mrs Sturgeon and her deputy, John Swinney, that it was impossible for them to give the commission access to the legal advice given to the Scottish Government in the Salmond cases. It is confidential and therefore cannot be shared, they protest. What complete nonsense. You, the Scottish Government, are the client and may waive the privilege associated with legal advice at any time.
