Nobody ever goes near a court without there being severe stress involved. Whether it’s for a criminal matter, because you’re in debt or going through a horrendous family situation, being able to access the justice system easily is critical. The SNP Government in Scotland seeks to centralise court proceedings, meaning long journeys and increased pressure on already over capacity city courts. Last week a Holyrood committee, with a majority of SNP MSPs, backed the Government’s approach. What was striking was that they all spoke up for their own local facilities before voting to close them.
Tavish Scott used his Scotsman column this week to take these MSPs to task. Tavish is no stranger to acting on principle to stand up for his constituents. He resigned as Deputy Minister for Parliament in 2001 when he could not agree with measures taken on fisheries by the Scottish Executive.
If those SNP MSPs had done the same thing and voted to save their local courts, what would have happened to them? The Government’s overall majority is on a knife edge already, so they would have got little more than a hard stare from the Chief Whip.
Tavish writes in the Scotsman that putting party unity first in the hope of achieving independence in the referendum next year won’t do them much good in the long run.
The big picture still points to 18 September, 2014. The independence referendum provides a laser-like focus for Nationalists. Nothing is allowed to get in the way of the objective that remains the only factor that unites all SNP members.
Divided parties do not look good as the electorate looks in on parliament. Look at the embarrassment of the SNP’s numerous positions on the currency an independent Scotland would adopt. Alex Salmond’s assertion that Scotland would walk into a sterling currency zone is hotly disputed. Not only by the UK government, but also by leading advocates of independence. The chairman of the Yes campaign openly disagrees with Salmond.
But the loyalty demanded by SNP ministers of their back-benchers must have come at a cost. A new constituency member such as North East Fife’s Rod Campbell voted this week to close Cupar Sheriff Court, despite arguing to the contrary. Uncomfortable stuff. Mr Campbell must be hoping the Kingdom of Fife forgets this before the 2016 election. He is not alone.
Could it be that these back-benchers are so wedded to nationalism that the greater goal of independence must be put before local people who elected them to represent their interests? Will these backbenchers ever say no to the great leader?
The whole article is available here.
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Learning from the Zen masters
Maybe the cancellation of Time Team is the event after which everything started going wrong
West End street surgeries tonight #dundeewestend
Will Trump's free speech demands endanger British children?
Low Fell action day
Yeovil Yokel
Mike Peters
Robert Brown
Peter Wrigley
Jenny Barnes
3 Comments
“meaning long journeys and increased pressure on already over capacity city courts”
In don’t know the details but the County Courts that have been closed in my neck of the woods were very poor in terms of facilities. It’s one thing having a nearby Court – but if you get there and there is nowhere to park nearby, nowhere private to speak to your lawyer, there is no disabled access, no facilities to get tea/coffee let alone a sandwich then other factors come in to play.
Courts now scheduled to close had adequate facilities for the work they did. (I was a court lawyer).
If legal firms exist locally because that is what clients want, so should the courts. It is an extra burden on lawyers and their clients if they have to travel some distance to seek justice. There is indeed a case for the provision of new sheriff courts in towns (Glenrothes, Cumbernauld, East Kilbride) where there are already at least, say, ten legal firms indicating a demand for local justice. Moving Sheriffs between courts to “mop up” the available business is less onerous than having the parties, witnesses and lawyers, often at the taxpayers expense, travel to a more distant town.
The main reason for closure appears to be cost, Is the saving to central coffers more than the increased cost of time, travel and inconvenience for those associated with justice ? I suspect that it is not, and, in line with the principle of localism which the SNP seems inexplicably to ignore, it has to be.
Few local issues have created more indignation thanthe closure of village schools or cottage hospitals to provide “better” services for the money expended. There is now similar unrest where sheriff courts close.
It was, I understand, accepted in Westminster that an MP would be forgiven for voting against his or her party to reflect strong local feeling. Pity that MSPs such as Rod Campbell voted in the Justice Committee against the closure before proper research had established whether there really is an overall cost saving. His constituents will not forget. .
Fair enough Robin – like I said I don’t know the local circumstances. But there are a few courts I can think of that have closed in my neck of the woods that few people will regret the passing of!