I VOTED for the SNP in the Holyrood elections because they were slightly more mature and less opportunistic than the alternatives.

Recent attacks on the Supreme Court by Alex Salmond and Kenny MacAskill are consequently very disappointing. As both these politicians know perfectly well, the leading judgments of the Supreme Court in Scottish cases are almost invariably given by the two Scottish judges and the other judges simply fall into line behind them.

The recent decisions of the Supreme Court in the Cadder and Fraser cases were not imposed by English judges whose only knowledge of Scots law was acquired during brief visits to the Edinburgh Festival (“MacAskill in new attack on Supreme Court rulings”, The Herald, May 31), but were, in practice, made by Lords Hope and Rodger, both of whom have previously held office as Scotland’s most senior judge. The SNP appears to be claiming that the European Court of Human Rights will be more sympathetic to Scots Law, yet it does not contain one Scottish judge and is unlikely to do so in the near future because the UK spot will almost certainly continue to be occupied by an English lawyer. There is a genuine debate to be had about the role of the Supreme Court in Scottish criminal cases but it is ill-served by the crude populism adopted by senior SNP politicians. They are in danger of descending to the level of their political rivals.

Peter Duff,

Professor of Criminal Justice,

School of Law, Aberdeen University, Taylor Building, Aberdeen.

Correspondents on the subject of the UK Supreme Court involving itself in Scots criminal appeals appear unmindful of the prior history and political context of appeals from the Scottish courts. Originally “protestation for remeid of law” in civil cases was allowed to the Scottish Parliament in exceptional cases.

Limited right of appeal to the parliament was reasserted in the Claim of right of 1689. Although the Union agreements of 1707 did not deal with possible appeals to a UK Parliament the House of Lords accepted a civil appeal in the first session of Parliament after the Union, but thereafter refused to hear criminal appeals on the grounds that the Scots Parliament had not ever heard these. This was the position until the recent intervention of the UK Supreme Court.

None of this is satisfactory. In the 19th century the Lords claimed extensive civil authority to which it was not entitled. Scots law suffered as a result. This unfortunate situation was not remedied by sending one or two Scottish judges to London, because they were still in a minority. The distinguished Scots jurist Professor Sir Thomas Smith once wrote: “Paradoxically, some of the Scottish lawyers in the House of Lords have at times been responsible for the subversion of valuable principles of their national system.” He suggested this gave the two Scots judges in London too much power over their colleagues in Scotland and too little power in relation to the judges in London who were trained in a different legal tradition. He further suggested it might be more appropriate to give the Court of Session the appellate power to convene the whole court to decide matters of extreme importance. By inference, human rights issues could qualify.

The First Minister is right to object to the incursions by the Supreme Court, first because the integrity of Scots law is being undermined yet again and, secondly, because this situation has in part been brought about by the Scotland Act setting up a Scottish Parliament that is manifestly not sovereign. Both these deficiencies need to be remedied. Equality of legal jurisdictions requires equality of parliaments.

Randolph Murray

Wester Camghouran, Rannoch, Perthshire.

The responses of the First Minister and now the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to the decision of the Supreme Court in the Nat Fraser case are the first real constitutional shots in anger in the lead-up to an independence referendum.

If this is to be the standard of debate we have to look forward to in the next few years we are in for a worrying time.

There is nothing particularly new about criminal cases from Scotland going before a court south of the Border. They have been going there ever since devolution, only to begin with they went to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, as much a court as the Supreme Court.

The lead judges for Scottish cases in the Supreme Court are the Scottish members. For some years those judges have been Lord Hope and Lord Rodger, two of the most distinguished Scottish judges there have ever been. The implication that somehow their involvement is watering down the distinctive nature of the Scottish criminal justice system is ridiculous.

Comments suggesting that the Supreme Court justices from England, Wales and Northern Ireland are ignorant of Scots Law, could, if valid, be made equally about the Scottish justices’ knowledge of the relevant domestic law when they sit in appeals from England, Wales, Northern Ireland or the Commonwealth countries which have their final appeals heard in London. They could be made even more powerfully when referring to the judges of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, to which apparently the Scottish Government is willing to submit. In fact the supra-national make-up of the Supreme Court is one of the features which give authority and respect to its decisions within and beyond the UK.

The Supreme Court offers the Government the opportunity to appeal against High Court decisions ruling against the Crown on human rights issues in criminal matters. There would be no such appeal available to the Strasbourg court. It only permits victims of human rights abuses to appeal.

I am afraid the SNP attack on the Supreme Court demonstrates the sort of chauvinistic nationalism which seeks to defend any institution on the grounds that it is ours and therefore automatically above criticism.

We should also not be afraid to accept that our justice system can draw from the experience of others and improve our laws and procedures. Scottish judges have consistently punched above their weight, both in London and in Europe, showing that what is good about Scots Law can have much wider influence, but we do not have a monopoly in right answers. When we look at some of the judicial decisions made in the name of criminal justice by Scottish courts in the last 20 years, that ought to be an easy lesson to accept.

Tom Marshall,

8 Manse Street, Aberdour.

Your report regarding the forthcoming “gathering” of the Scottish cabinet to discuss “remedying” the referral of Scottish criminal cases to the Supreme Court on human rights grounds reflects a clear indication that the nationalist politicians increasingly resemble a huffy coterie quaking in the throes of a tartan tantrum.

Their insular and provincial mindset was offended by the Supreme Court’s decision in the Fraser appeal and their emotional wellbeing was consequently destabilised by an acute fit of bagpipe pique. This minor handicap relieved them of the need to consider the merits of the Supreme Court’s role regarding the enhancement of justice and that serious omission may have been aided and abetted by an eager consumption of Brigadoon broth – a notorious starter, universally recognised as a potent remedy for rational thinking.

A spokesman for Kenny MacAskill stated: “Scotland’s distinct legal system, including our criminal law, has served our country well for centuries, ensuring justice for victims while also protecting the rights of those accused of a crime’.

The ghosts of Paddy Meehan and Oscar Slater would not challenge the distinct nature of Scotland’s legal system but they might query the contention that the system “protects the rights of the accused. The Cadder and Fraser appeals suggest that it is Scotland’s distinct legal system that needs remedied and that the distinct nature of the system is reflected in its failings rather than its merits – hence the need for external scrutiny by the Supreme Court.

Thomas Crooks,

81 Dundas Street, Edinburgh.