Campaigner leading court action aiming to prove Scotland does not need WM’s blessing to hold an indyref has called on the Lord Advocate Jas Wolfe to say exactly who he represents, after a Court of Session judge yesterday described a motion as a “fishing diligence”.

Keatings:the most concerning aspect of the hearing was the refusal by Wolffe’s counsel to stipulate WHO the Lord Advocate is representing. “He was convened in this action to represent the interests of Scottish Parliament, NOT the Scottish Government."
Keatings: "We have a Lord Advocate (representing Scots parliament) being represented by ScotGov Legal Directorate (representing ScotGov), where Lord Advocate is supposed to be representing Scots Parliament but is advancing arguments on behalf of ScotGov, who have withdrawn!"
Keatings: “ScotGov seem to have dusted themselves in Lord Advocate coconut, & are trying to pass themselves off as a Scottish parliamentary snowball," antithetical to principle of separation of powers, as Lord Advocate spent more time wearing his “SG hat” than his parliament one
Keatings: although Wolffe is in Scottish Cabinet, his post is NOT supposed to be political: “I need say no more than my legal counsel Aidan O’Neill QC said in the hearing ... that the Lord Advocate seems to be a ScotGov mouthpiece.."
Keatings: “My ultimate concern in the Lord Advocate continually dodging the question on who he is representing, is that he is opening up ScotGov to accusations of POLITICAL INTERFERENCE in a legal case to which they are no longer a party litigant- by their own choice.”
ScotGov spokesperson: “The pursuer in this case has chosen to bring an action naming ScotGov, the Lord Advocate, & Advocate General for Scotland as defenders. ScotGov is not defending the action. "
SG “The procedure raises important legal & constitutional issues of a technical & procedural nature, unconnected to issue of independence. These cannot be ignored, & are reason Lord Advocate, as SG’s senior law officer, has maintained defences dealing with those issues alone."
SG: “The Lord Advocate does NOT represent Scottish Parliament, but is ScotGov’s law officer & member of ScotGov, and also has duties from his office in upholding the proper operation of the law, courts and constitution.”

More from Legal

You May Also Like

So the cryptocurrency industry has basically two products, one which is relatively benign and doesn't have product market fit, and one which is malignant and does. The industry has a weird superposition of understanding this fact and (strategically?) not understanding it.


The benign product is sovereign programmable money, which is historically a niche interest of folks with a relatively clustered set of beliefs about the state, the literary merit of Snow Crash, and the utility of gold to the modern economy.

This product has narrow appeal and, accordingly, is worth about as much as everything else on a 486 sitting in someone's basement is worth.

The other product is investment scams, which have approximately the best product market fit of anything produced by humans. In no age, in no country, in no city, at no level of sophistication do people consistently say "Actually I would prefer not to get money for nothing."

This product needs the exchanges like they need oxygen, because the value of it is directly tied to having payment rails to move real currency into the ecosystem and some jurisdictional and regulatory legerdemain to stay one step ahead of the banhammer.