CATHERINE Stihler (Letters, July 18) accuses Nicola Sturgeon of "cheek" in criticising the No campaign for continuing to spread false claims over Scotland's EU membership.
In fact, the cheek is all hers.
It is a simple matter of fact that the No campaign continued to spread false claims re Scotland's EU membership after the office of the commission president issued a clarification that Jean-Claude Juncker's remarks were not about Scotland.
By her criticism of Nicola Sturgeon Ms Stihler is implicitly supporting the spread of disinformation. Most people are unaware of the reasons behind governments withholding legal advice, a fact frequently exploited by those opposed to information being withheld.
The practice was established by the UK Government. Scottish governments have followed the practice. The principle is not to conceal the advice itself but to neither confirm nor deny if it exists.
The idea is to allow ministers to consult freely and obtain advice on any area of potential policy without either public or political scrutiny. Legal advice can only be made public with the Lord Advocate's permission.
There may be a debate to be had as to whether it is a good practice or not, but never the less it exists. Ms Stihler is well aware of this. She would be aware that this practice has been used far more often by previous Labour/LibDem administrations than by the current SNP administration.
She must also have been aware that this is precisely the kind of occasion where a government, any government, would have invoked the principle of neither confirming nor denying if legal advice had been sought.
In pursuing the matter through the courts Ms Stihler and the Scottish Information Commissioner would have been aware that the Scottish Government would defend the principle. It is Ms Stihler who bears the responsibility for the legal costs involved.
She might do better to encourage the UK Government to seek clarification directly from the European Commission who have indicated that they will respond to a direct request from the UK government.
Kenneth McNeil,
Alva Place, Lenzie.
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 hereComments are closed on this article