Letter: Low Bench mark

Maggie Scott's cool, cogent and impressive analysis of the near hysterical hostility by Scotland's political and legal establishments to the Supreme Court's judgment on the Cadder case (Law and Legal Affairs, 8 November) is a refreshing and surprising (given her status) contribution to the debate.

Referring to the Scottish Appeal Court's dismissal of the Cadder appeal, she asked: "How did the Scottish judges get it so wrong?"

Here is a tentative answer: an innate sense of entitlement, a sense of "ownership" appears to pervade the mindset of the Scottish legal establishment regarding Scots law and the judgments that emanate from it.

This appears to evoke feelings of hostility when the judgments of the establishment are questioned. The Scottish legal establishment has a long history of propagating the view that Scotland's legal system (and, by implication, those who administer it) is the envy of the world.

Consequently, those who utilise extraneous and added-on mechanisms (like the European Convention on Human Rights and the Scotland Act) to challenge the judgments of the legal establishment appear to face an almost impossible task when they challenge the validity of those judgments.

Lord Hope (Supreme Court) assessed the unanimous decision of the Scottish Appeal Court (7-0) in the Cadder case and concluded that the decision was untenable.

The laity might, therefore, conclude that Scotland's legal establishment is burdened by a parochial mindset that inhibits the exercise of reason when confronted with a cogent attack on the validity of its judgments.

Perhaps that explains why the Scottish legal establishment failed to comply with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Scotland Act - and why it took the intervention of the Supreme Court to achieve that compliance.

Thomas Crooks

Dundas Street

Edinburgh