Judges with the Midas TV touch

the plug on the Prime Minister's interview on Panorama.

Politicians, other than Conservatives of course, have been queuing up

to pat them on the back for restating the independence of the Scottish

judicial system and for protecting the fairness of tomorrow's local

government elections from southern interference.

That may well be the effect of the decisions taken by the judges,

although their lordships will be careful to sidestep any attempt to

embroil them in political controversy.

The ruling by Lord Abernethy, backed by Lord President Hope, Lord

Murray, and Lord McCluskey, that the BBC was arguably in breach of its

obligation to treat controversial topics fairly, was taken on strictly

legal grounds.

What is certainly true is that it has alerted some of the great and

good in London to the fact that elections are taking place in Scotland

tomorrow, that we regard them as important and that we have a separate

legal system with some independently minded judges.

The attempt by the BBC to go to London to overrule the decision of

three Court of Session judges over the Panorama ban has also highlighted

the role of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords as the court

of last resort in Scottish civil cases.

It is a system that has existed since the Act of Union and the legal

profession in Scotland is divided over its continuing usefulness.

Some regard it as an insult that vitally important legal decisions

which affect people's lives are taken outwith our own boundaries by

judges trained in a different legal system.

Others, including the critics of the Scottish Court of Criminal Appeal

(from which there is no appeal to the Lords), consider that the

influence of fresh thinking from outwith our own narrow perspective is

no bad thing.

Before 1707 there was an appeal from the Scottish courts to the old

Scottish Parliament and although the Parliament did not survive, the

appeal procedure did.

A dozen cases or so find their way every year from the Court of

Session to five House of Lords judges. Normally this will happen only

after lengthy and extensive hearings by one Scottish judge, then three

on appeal, on some important point of law.

There are a number of reasons why the Lords might still have the final

say in the BBC case. The Court of Session judges refused the corporation

leave to go to the Lords because the case is still at a rudimentary

stage and there is no final decision on which to base an appeal.

The BBC may lodge a further appeal against the ban or it may raise an

action of declarator asking the Court of Session to state the law. More

likely, it will contest the petition for judicial review lodged at the

court by the Scottish National Party.

If the case does finally wend its way to the House of Lords by any of

these avenues there is no guarantee that it would come to the same

conclusion as the Court of Session. In recent times the Lords have

overturned Court of Session rulings in several important cases.

It is because of a Lords ruling, for example, that judicial review

cases must be heard at the Court of Session rather than the sheriff

court.

Last month, the law lords allowed an appeal by Grampian region against

the decision of two Court of Session judges (Lord McCluskey dissented)

over the access or custody rights of a parent whose child had been freed

for adoption.

That case was unusual because three of the five judges in the Lords

were Scots -- the Lord Chancellor, Lord Keith, and Lord Jauncey.

Normally, the Scots are in the minority and sometimes only one sits

with four English colleagues who may not know too much about Scots law.

One advocate who was in the Lords recently arguing a conveyancing case

was somewhat stunned to hear one of his lordships ask: ''What is a

missive?''

''It's enough to turn you into a nationalist -- if you weren't one

already,'' added the Scots lawyer.

Professor Robert Black, Professor of Scots Law at Edinburgh

University, acknowledges the drawback to the system but points out that

at least it has improved since the days when none of the Lords judges

knew any Scots law and cared even less.

''At one time the Lords didn't give a stuff about Scots law and

regarded their role as making it as near English law as they could,'' he

said. ''There was also a time when Scottish counsel bowed out after the

Court of Session stage with that the result that neither counsel nor the

judges had a clue about what was going on.

''Some would see it as crazy that we have a final appeal court where

Scottish judges are in the minority. What could be done instead is to

convene a larger court in Scotland, consisting of five or seven judges.

''In that situation, the counsel and judges dealing with the issue

would be trained in Scots law. At the moment, the four English judges

often decide to 'leave it to the Jock'.''

As Scottish judges have long had to recognise, however, the House of

Lords is legally supreme, whatever its shortcomings in reality.

About 60 years ago, with perhaps just a hint of sarcasm, Scottish

judge Lord Sands described the Lords as ''an infallible interpreter of

the law.

''The House of Lords has a perfect legal mind. Learned lords may come

and go, but the House of Lords never makes a mistake. Occasionally, two

decisions of the House of Lords may seem inconsistent. But that is only

a seeming. It is our frail vision that is at fault.''