New Statesman Scotland
The rumblings over the way Scottish judges are appointed has taken an intriguing new twist. That doughty defender of all things Caledonian and supreme ruler of the Pictish Free State (a few square yards of Skye), Robbie the Pict, has weighed in with what might prove to be a fairly sharp-edged legal claymore. Last week, he went to court in Edinburgh to challenge the right of the Lord Advocate (a political appointee) to decide who should sit on the Scottish bench. Robbie is using as his legal authority Section Six of the European Convention on Human Rights which, thanks to the Scotland Act of 1998, is now incorporated into Scots law.
Robbie may be a colourful and kenspeckle figure, but he has been well advised. The judges do seem to be taking his challenge seriously. Seriously enough, anyway, to schedule a hearing at the beginning of March. The trouble is, the judge lumbered with the job of weighing up Robbie's arguments is John Wheatley - the most recent beneficiary of the Lord Advocate's legal patronage. Wheatley is reported to be scratching under his horsehair wig as to how this should be handled. Should he judge Robbie's challenge on his own? Or should he whistle up a couple of his judicial sidekicks? And if they find against Robbie, will they be accused of gratitude? This diary looks forward to hearing John Wheatley's brother-in-law, Tam Dalyell MP, pronounce on whether or not it is a good idea for the Lord Advocate to create judges.
Now that the Royal Bank of Scotland has won the tussle for control over the creaking apparatus of the NatWest Bank, a new question emerges: what will the new institution be called? Will the whole huge affair become the Royal Bank of Scotland? Or will it be a combination of the two titles? Royal NatWest, perhaps? Or Royal Bank of NatWest Scotland? Perhaps not. That one sounds a bit too much like a bank based in Lochinver specialising in the funding of lobster boats. But whatever the decision, this diary would like to bet that the word "Scotland" will eventually disappear.
In fact, the Royal Bank tried to do that a few years ago but got knocked back by Buck House. No bunch of moneylenders, it was told, had the right to call itself "Royal". But where there is a will there is usually a way. For some years, the bank has been quietly downgrading Scotland. At a few branches in Edinburgh and Glasgow, the words "Royal Bank" are displayed prominently, and tucked underneath in tiny letters are the words "of Scotland". It seems a pity that our biggest financial institution, which is now a major player on the world financial stage, should find the idea of Scotland embarrassing.
Still on the subject of the Royal Bank and its new empire, the bank has announced that it has acquired that roundly loathed piece of 1960s, asbestos-riddled Stalinism known as New St Andrew's House, which it plans to flatten and replace with something "elegant". The chances are that whatever the bank puts in place will never be as elegant as the Georgian square (St James's Square) and terraces that were destroyed to make way for New St Andrew's House. But the site, where Leith Street runs into the east end of Princes Street, is an important one. Important enough, in this diary's opinion, for a major architectural competition - the result to be decided by a judging panel that is not overimpressed by the blandishments of "exciting" Continental designs.
And, at the risk of this diary appearing hopelessly "provincial", with a bit of luck a Scottish talent will win.
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
