When it came to his big moment to put his case before the Supreme Court the Lord Advocate drew somewhat of a short straw.
A quarter past three in the afternoon is a difficult time to try to set out any kind of argument, let alone a complicate legal one.
Winter being what it is, the light gradually ebbed as he talked. Or perhaps that was just how it seemed in the gloomy, cramped courtroom.
Scotland's most senior law officer is also the possessor of a very calm, sonorous voice,
He speaks in the kind of tones harassed parents would pay good money for to sooth howling children to sleep.
But if anyone involved in the proceedings was feeling the need for a post-lunch nap they showed little sign of it.
At one point one of the Supreme Court justices asked the Lord Advocate for a reference.
"It is quoted in my written case at MS 1612," came the reply.
"Paragraph?", the judge shot back, quick as a flash.
"Paragraph 76, subparagraph 4, right at the top of the page," the Lord Advocate replied with, it has to be said, something of a flourish.
Adding, for those perhaps falling behind at the back, "It is paragraph 9 of the explanatory notes".
Pages rustled behind him.
Proving that, once again, no law is too old for this court case, his argument rested, in part, on the 1707 Act of Union.
That established that changes to legislation affecting Scotland could be agreed by the Westminster parliament not by the Crown, he said, for which read the UK Government.
But there were more modern references as well, including to the 2016 Scotland Act, which said that Westminster would ask Holyrood before legislating in devolved areas.
But what, suggested another of the justices, if they just did not bother?
Mr Wolffe said that he was taking Parliament at its word. His inquisitor looked doubtful.
Just moments later the justices appeared to accept that the time was against them.
Instead of carrying on until 4.30, they broke up at 4pm.
The Lord Advocate will continue his argument later today.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel