"Tory leader Annabel Goldie said her party's support for Ms Angiolini's nomination was "heavily qualified". She said: "The job of Lord Advocate is essentially that of chief legal adviser to the Scottish Executive. "The question is being asked: does Ms Angiolini possess the breadth of legal experience to provide that advice?"
And Ms Goldie said there had to be "real concerns" about the chief legal adviser to the Executive also being chief prosecutor for Scotland...
Ms Goldie's concerns were echoed by former judge Lord McCluskey, who questioned whether Ms Angiolini, who was the first non-advocate to become Solicitor-General in 2001, had the right background to lead the prosecution service.
He said: "Traditionally the Lord Advocate has always come from the Bar. I'm not arguing the Bar has exclusive rights but it does possess a culture of independence. I think there is a weakness in appointing someone who does not have that background."
Would they make similar criticisms if Ms Angiolini were (a) a man and (b) from the 'right' social background? For what it's worth, my view is that her vast experience from inside the bureacracy of the Crown Office must make her one of the most well-suited lawyers ever to become Lord Advocate. It is difficult for an outsider to comment on her personal abilities but she has to be a better bet than some of her predecessors.
1 comment:
Spot on. She is certainly a better bet than her immediate predecessor, who can only be described as a tube.
The way in which she was required to work him from behind like a puppet master was at times embarrassing. She has a formidible intellect, and is more than capable of doing the job.
I do agree with Annabel Goldie that the Lord Advocate now has far too many hats, but at least (unlike her predecessor) she might have a clue what hat she's wearing.
Post a Comment