The Hapless Lord Advocate

Dorothy Bain QC, Lord Advocate of Scottland

Hardly had a minute past publishing a new ‘Postcard of Wisdom‘ when I spotted ALBA MP Kenny MacAskill’s constituency website criticism of the toothless Lord Advocate, Dorothy Bain QC. She was appointed, one must add, by Nicola Sturgeon, a first minister with a track-record for elevating inexpert, unethical non-achievers, a few with damp palms and a penchant for grooming, who wobble over fundamental, basic issues concerning Scotland’s birthright, unsure of the verisimilitude of their case. The postcard read:

“When was the last time Scottish lawyers drew up a treaty or accord with England, with any nation, for that matter? I’ll tell you. 1707. Counsel sought, clueless, they scramble for answers. We lay truth before them but they falter, respectful of English power.”

The Hapless Lord Advocate

by Kenny MacAskill

I’m a huge fan of the Irish comedy show “Father Ted”. The number of shows is sadly limited given the tragic and far to early death of Dermot Morgan who played Father Ted. One of my favourite episodes though was “Kicking Bishop Brennan up the Arse”. In this show Father Ted has to do the needful to his superior following a forfeit and as you can imagine it’s doomed to failure. The shenanigans along the way though are chortling. 

However, that’s a comedy show but I am minded of it watching the Lord Advocate prepare to go before the Supreme Court with the legislation for an independence referendum. It’s got as much chance of success as I have of getting an American Green Card. Father Ted was funny in his actions and sympathy lay with him, the Lord Advocate [Doroth Bain QC] just looks hapless, as well as cynically going through the motions. 

The fact that she referred it isn’t a cunning wheeze as Father Ted devised to be able to apply his boot to the Bishops posterior. Instead, it’s confirmation that she has no faith in what the Government are doing and frankly no real support for it. She’s simply used an expedited procedure to get it before the court, as she isn’t willing to sign off the legislation as is required.  

Father Ted at least had to profess belief in Catholicism to be appointed albeit to the purgatory of Craggy Island. The Lord Advocate doesn’t even believe in the core policy of the government in which she serves. You’d have thought in the real world you’d avoid appointing an apostate to such a critical position. 

Her submissions to the Supreme Court are the written equivalent of the legal cop-out of “my client advises me” i.e. I’m only saying what they tell me and I don’t believe a word of it myself. It’s so manifest that the SNP are now seeking to enter into the action which has been brought by the government they control. Why? Because the person representing them doesn’t believe in the policy she’s being asked to promote on their behalf. What a waste of valuable party funds.  

Her referral to the Supreme Court’s her equivalent of Father Ted’s forfeit and she’s going to suffer the same fate. But that was comedy, whilst this is just pure farce.     

********************************************

This entry was posted in General, Scottish Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to The Hapless Lord Advocate

  1. ambouche says:

    Continually keep the feet of these rogues to the fire.
    Don’t let up.
    Expose them.
    I suppose the titles QC and Lord are the give aways to there alligiances.
    Having read the blogs on the claim of right.
    I feel these advocates down through time till now, and our politicians are treasonous to Scotland.
    🐼🐼🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

  2. lorncal says:

    The substance of the case itself is tenuous and nebulous, in keeping with the Lord Advocate’s demeanour. Not only has Scotland’s legal fraternity not concluded a Treaty in over 300 years, but they have seldom stood up for Scotland in public. Having known a fair few academic Scottish lawyers, I can attest to the fact that most of them were soundly Scottish and patriotic, angered by high-handedness in English MPs just after the Union or any slight to Scotland’s pride. Of course, although delivered in lectures and tutorials, in tones of sepulchral seriousness to readily-accepting students, themselves mostly Scottish and patriotic, speaking out in public would have earned rebukes aplenty, especially if the Scottish establishment got wind of such mutterings of dissent.

    I have always been of the opinion that even Scottish Unionists know the score in relation to how Scotland is treated as the poor relation, supposedly dependent on the largesse of our big neighbour, but they fear upsetting the applecart: “And always keep a-hold of nurse For fear of finding something worse” – Hilaire Belloc. I think the same applies to Ms Bain and to the SNP, and, indeed, to the whole Scottish establishment. Reluctance to openly dissent is not always a sign of the absence of dissent, but the effect is the same, GB, I agree.

  3. alfbaird says:

    Kenny’s example serves to demonstrate two things that, according to Albert Memmi, mark out any colonial administration: 1. a mediocre meritocracy, which always acts in the interest of the colonial power, and; 2. their main function is to ensure that any hope of independence for the native people is made to seem impossible.

  4. duncanio says:

    As Alex Salmond has said when your LA cannot or will not ADVOCATE your case it time you hired one that can or will!

    It is astonishing that the Scottish Government stood against Martin Keatings/Forward as One action to establish the very thing they purport to be trying to establish now, namely the competence of the Scottish Parliament to legislate for holding a referendum on Scotland’s constitutional arrangements. The then LA (James Wolffe, QC) claimed that “it’s not for the pursuer to stand in the shoes of parliamentarians” (see https://www.thenational.scot/politics/19383739.lord-advocate-seeks-costs-keatingss-indyref2-case/). The pursuer was a member of the electorate, representing 10,000 voters (i.e. Forward As One membership). How very dare he/them!

    At least the Keatings cases – the original one and and subsequent appeal – were held here in Scotland, in the (Outer and Inner) Courts of Session. They ruled against making a ruling on the grounds that the question was hypothetical since the bill was only in draft form (see https://www.thenational.scot/news/19270754.scottish-independence-peoples-action-section-30-case-appeal-rejected/).

    However, the present case ‘presented’ by the current LA (Dorothy Bain, QC) puts Scotland’s sovereignty in the dock of a court that is a child of the British Parliament … and very establishment that seeks to deny Scotland’s right of self-determination (let alone full self-government and statehood)!

    The whole thing is an outrageous affront to democracy. In addition it is, as Kenny MacAskill points out, a scandalous waste of money.

    Perhaps now we are beginning to see where some of that ‘ring-fenced’ money has been going …

    PS
    On a separate note GB, myself and my wife enjoyed meeting you, however, briefly at The Wee Alba Book meeting at the Waterloo Hotel yesterday afternoon. Having acquired them we are both looking forward to reading “Essays” volumes 1 & 2 in the next little while.

  5. Grouse Beater says:

    The tactics of the oppressor and his colonial watchdogs can be reduced to an acronym: the three Cs’: Consent, Conformity and Control. Use propaganda to achieve consent, award conformity, and once the first two are well imbedded, the last is easy to implement.

  6. “I can’t believe what you say, because I see what you do”. James Baldwin

    ‘So with ‘The Party’ having removed one of those threats – Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party – so too it follows that they had to infiltrate, ideologically destabilise and fracture the most powerful of all threats to the British State; the long-established Scottish National Party… This second SNP group are a small ‘liberal’ minority driven by gender ideology, bribery and/or blackmail kompromat material who hold a number of the key senior, strategic and advisory appointments – certainly within the NEC. They’re playing the ‘waiting game’ for an entirely different reason; to play their Charrington part when the Tories pull the trigger.’

    ‘Indicating Charrington: 13 Red Flags Signposting The Party’s US ‘Liberal’ & UK ‘Centrist’ Plants’ (2022) https://wp.me/p94Aj4-3gT

    Johnny McNeill
    #GaslightingGilligan (© 2017) 
    Twitter: @GasGilligan (free download)

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s