Remember that case I wrote and blogged about (on one or two occasions) where legislation of the Scottish Parliament was held to be non-compliant with Article 1, Protocol 1 of the ECHR? Well, news outlets are now reporting that Salvesen v Riddell is to be appealed to the Supreme Court.
To the extent this has any relevance, judge observers will note that the Court of Session decision starred Lord Justice Clerk Gill (as he then was), the author of the leading monograph on agricultural holdings in Scotland, whereas the Supreme Court decision will almost inevitably star Lord Reed, co-author of the leading textbook on human rights in Scotland.
Who is your money on?
For my part, I now have the academic sweat of wondering whether what I have said already is summarily rejected or ignored by more eminent legal minds than me in their deliberations. That being so, I suspect such concerns are paltry when contrasted with other protagonists involved in the dispute over an East Lothian farm.
Update 16 January 2013: Angus McCall, the Chairman of Scottish Tenant Farmers Association who Tweets as @mccallangus, was kind enough to share this News Release (PDF) with me, which details the STFA response to this news. The release also implies there are concerns with one or two “yet to been tested” areas of agricultural holdings law. That may be so, but it will be noted that the Supreme Court case will only deal with the narrow (and rather complex) point of the validity of the provision of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 that gave a security of tenure “upgrade” to a general partner in circumstances where the limited partner sought to bring their limited partnership to an end in a period of time straddling 2002 and 2003.