'Disquiet' in SNP ranks over Alex Salmond's attack on judge

On six separate occasions, the First Minister rejected requests to either retract or apologise for his remarks, which have damaged relations between the Scottish Government and the legal establishment.

At First Minister's Questions yesterday, opposition leaders united to call on Mr Salmond to withdraw the comments he made about Lord Hope of Craighead, one of two Scottish judges sitting on the UK Supreme Court.

Their calls for an apology came as eminent legal figures stepped into the row and claimed Mr Salmond's outburst amounted to a challenge to the rule of law and undermined the independence of the judiciary.

In private, prominent SNP figures at Holyrood were dismayed by the First Minister's performance in the Holyrood chamber.

One SNP source said: "I don't think people knew where to put themselves at First Minister's Questions. John Swinney looked distinctly uncomfortable. There is pretty much disquiet in the ranks over this.

"To a degree, he thinks he can get away with these things, because we have got this wonderful majority. But there is a feeling that he is overstretching himself on this one. He is trying to make a serious point, but there is disquiet over the way it has been handled."

However, the First Minister was defiant, despite the barrage of criticism.

Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray said Mr Salmond's comments about Lord Hope and the well-known human rights lawyer Tony Kelly were "crass, personal attacks that demean the office to which he was elected".

Annabel Goldie, the Conservative leader, accused Mr Salmond of hurling "provocative insults" which had a "sneering disregard for the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law".

The Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie described Mr Salmond's behaviour as "outrageous", "arrogant" and "foolish".

• Analysis: Muddying the waters of an already complicated issue

• Sketch: Alex declines a slice of humble pie and defends free speech - especially his own

During First Minister's Questions, Mr Gray asked Mr Salmond on three separate occasions to either apologise or retract his remarks.

Twice, Mr Salmond was asked by Miss Goldie to apologise, before he was given "one final chance" by Mr Rennie to withdraw his attack on Lord Hope.

During heated exchanges at Holyrood, an unapologetic Mr Salmond declined on all six occasions to give his opponents what they wanted.

Instead, he responded by defending his right to free speech and repeating his concerns about human rights cases that resulted in compensation being paid to criminals.

The row was ignited earlier this week with publication of an interview with Mr Salmond in Holyrood magazine that focused on the First Minister's anger over human rights cases being dealt with by the UK Supreme Court.

In the interview, the First Minister suggested Lord Hope's rulings were allowing the "vilest people on the planet" to be compensated by the taxpayer. He suggested Lord Hope had made "wrong-headed" decisions in human rights cases.

The First Minister also attacked Professor Kelly, a lawyer who has fought for the rights of prisoners in slopping-out cases.

Prof Kelly is considering legal action against Mr Salmond on the basis that his professional integrity has been undermined.

Yesterday, Mr Salmond defended himself by pointing out that judicial independence had been enshrined in the Courts Scotland Act of 2008, which was passed by his own SNP administration.

But UK government minister David Mundell questioned whether the First Minister had understood his own legislation.

The Tory MP and Scotland Office minister queried whether Mr Salmond "understands that his legal duty to uphold the continued independence of the judiciary also includes the UK Supreme Court".Mr Mundell went on: "The time has come for the First Minister to state publicly and unequivocally that he accepts the duties and responsibilities placed upon him by the Scottish Parliament.

"The First Minister's comments in recent weeks have carried a rather dangerous undertone and he needs to make a clear public commitment that he will stop seeking to undermine the court and start providing the support which his own legislation requires."

Mr Mundell's remarks came after the Faculty of Advocates and Law Society of Scotland took the unusual step of releasing a joint statement that suggested Mr Salmond's behaviour came close ignoring the rule of law.

The statement from Richard Keen, Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, and Cameron Ritchie, president of the Law Society of Scotland, said: "Our judges must be free to decide cases independently, according to law and upon evidence. Any attempt to influence the outcome of litigation by reference to political wishes or a politician's perception of popular opinion is a challenge not only to the courts but to the rule of law."