Letters: Salmond may regret his fiery language

Clearly, because he admitted to knowing "only a wee bit of the law", Alex Salmond could not foresee the possibility (your report, 16 June) of being sued by Professor Kelly when he accused the latter of "believing that the judicial system was there to make sure he could make an incredibly comfortable living".

Although he must be very close to being canonised as the Patron Saint of Bile, Salmond may yet regret his liberal utilisation of inflammatory language when referring to those who do not regard the Supreme Court as the anthrax of UK jurisprudence.

Belatedly, his dozy legal advisers and his slothful civil servants are now fully conscious, thanks to the invigorating effects of exposure to the dangers of legal action - hence the clash and clatter of acutely distressed back-pedalling in the corridors of power, as reflected in the humble statement from the First Minister's spokesman: "Things have moved on, and the opportunity now is to bring light and clarity to these issues.

"It is best to look to the future - not the past."

Omitted from this exercise in formalised panic is any mention of the major source of the "heated debate" that dominated the past: Salmond's intemperate, inflammatory and insulting attacks on the integrity of Lord Hope and Professor Kelly.

Stirred and destabilised by the drumbeat of nationalism and his detestation of the Supreme Court, Salmond is now universally recognised as the Dr Heckle and Mr Snide of international relations - thus enhancing his prospects of winning the Nobel prize for corrosive, offensive and possibly justiciable, disputation.

Thomas Crooks

Dundas Street

Edinburgh

It surprises me that, in the ongoing row over the Supreme Court, no politician, or lawyer, has mentioned Article XIX of the Treaty of Union.

As everyone should know, this article prohibits, specifically, any court in "Westminster-hall" from being able to "Cognosce, Review or Alter the Acts or Sentences of the Judicatures within Scotland, or stop the Execution of the same".

I submit that the setting up of a Supreme Court with some jurisdiction over Scots law was in itself a breach of the treaty. Its setting up without consultation with the Scottish people was an insult.

I would like to hear from Lord Hope and the other Scottish judges in that court to justify their involvement with it, in view of the restrictions imposed by Article XIX.

Similarly, I would like to hear from the various lawyers who are complaining, including Annabel Goldie, why they think this court has jurisdiction, again in view of Article XIX.

Of course, if I were to be charitable, I would accept that they might be ignorant of the terms of the treaty in the same way that English lawyers are.

John Scott Roy

Galloway Avenue

Ayr