FRIDAY, May 1, Dingwall Sheriff Court: the portraits of Sir James Matheson of Achany and the Lews and his nephew, Sir Alexander Matheson of Ardross and Lochalsh, men who helped persuade the Chinese nation of the narcotic qualities of opium, look down. Sheriff James

Fraser deals with a man from Ullapool who had #300 worth of cannabis and one from Achiltibuie who had failed a breath test. But the main business of the day is the Skye Bridge.

Two years and seven months after the bridge opened, two years since the first Skye Bridge trial, and still they grind on: during that time Sheriff

Fraser has been both hero and fiend to the campaigners. But his extraordinary performance during the perjury issue last Friday, although the most serious charge a campaigner may yet face, should not obscure the substance of the day.

Portree Councillor Drew Millar, convener of the Skye and Kyle Against Tolls (Skat) campaign, and another three are down for trial. Their lawyers are all waiving their fees for the day, but only Millar's case is called.

A handful of supporters sit on the public benches; by the afternoon there are only two. Yet again the central argument of the defence focuses on whether those collecting the tolls, employees of Miller Civil Engineering, have been properly empowered in law. Millar insists he has already bought a book of tickets and is quite prepared to surrender one of them but only if they can provide documentary evidence that they have legal authority to collect the tolls.

The argument is well-rehearsed. The Skye Bridge legislation gives the Secretary of State for Scotland a right to collect the tolls; he has assigned that right to Skye Bridge Ltd (SBL). To allow Miller Civil Engineering (MCE) to collect the tolls; SBL would have had to further assign its rights to MCE or to sub-contract to them. But we now know that Clause 28 of the Concession Agreement appears specifically to prohibit SBL from sub-contracting its rights or obligations without the Sec-retary of State's written consent, although it states that permission will not be unreasonably withheld when it comes to funding or contacting ''a reputable contractor'' to carry out the SBL's obligations.

Sheriff Fraser, who earlier felt constrained to compare the Scottish press to ''obedient dogs'' for their coverage of this debate, goes on to debunk the defence argument. He says that even a first-year lawyer could see that there has been no assignation to MCE, it was a subcontract; SBL was employing MCE to collect the tolls without any assignation of rights. Crucially, the

public has no right to intervene in the terms of the contract - it is none of our business. The only person who has that right is the Secretary of State.

He says the press has chosen not to report this in the past, but The Herald is certainly happy to do so today. What-ever else, it is clear the Secretary of State does have the right to intervene if he suspects there has been a breach of the terms of the contract. So why

doesn't he? There would appear little doubt that SBL should have sought written consent of the Secretary of State before using employees of MCE, a company which campaigners insist was dormant when the bridge opened in 1995. But the official view seems to be that this is a matter of no import. Certainly it would not have been difficult for SBL to have got such approval, but it didn't. If it is of no consequence, why have the clause in the first place? What other clauses in the contract have no force? This is a contract, we have been told, which is so tight that even the Government can do nothing about it.

These are just some of the questions. Despite Sheriff Fraser's insistence that it is nobody's business, in two earlier trials over which he did not preside, the Crown is concerned enough to produce a document, Crown Production 16. This has been sent from the Scottish Office as evidence that the Secretary of State has given his consent to MCE to

collect the tolls.

Robert Black, professor of Scots Law at Edinburgh University, studies that document and concludes: ''I have absolutely no doubt that this document does not constitute any form of consent by the Secretary of State. It simply says that the parties either have or will enter into various agreements.'' The solicitor who has acted for MCE and actually drew up the document, describes it as ''very minor'' and ''peripheral''.

If the defence had tabled such a questionable document the Crown would have been talking about attempts to pervert the course of justice. But because it emanates from the Scottish Office it must be fine; fine enough to use in a criminal prosecution where the accused should be given the benefit of any reasonable doubt. But nobody seems to care.

Then we have the Bank of America, currently being sued by more than 250 public bodies in the US for $1000m (#600m) for misuse of public funds, but the Scottish Office insists the bank's holding of 997 of SBL's 1000 shares is nothing to worry about. It covers a mortgage agreement so the Public Inquiry into the bridge didn't need to know about it, nor the National Audit Office, nor, indeed, any member of the public who asked. Independent opinion from Glasgow University's professor of business law, Lorne Crerar, that in law Bank of America does indeed own SBL, is dismissed.

After years of esoteric debate, it is in danger of being forgotten that for the 9000-strong community of Skye to get off the island in their cars during six months of the year, they either have to cross the bridge and pay the highest tolls in Europe (or fork out #26 for a book of concessionary tickets). The only other options are to sail westwards to Harris or North Uist and then drive to Lewis or South Uist to get a ferry back to Ullapool or Oban. No other community in Europe is treated in this way.

Nobody is asking the Government to pay out #30m to buy the bridge, but surely it is not too much for the Secretary of State to commission a respected QC, academic, or whoever as long as they are independent of the Scottish Office, to study all the documentation relating to the bridge. Not with a view to confirming the Scottish Office did everything to the letter, but rather to see if there is any way out of this. If there has been a breach of contract, can we use it? None of it is of Donald Dewar's doing, but he could act now before the Scottish Parliament gets its teeth into it.

If everything is whiter than white, fine; The Herald for its part will be pleased to shut up; but the genuine doubts and fears should not be allowed to fester any longer. It is not as if the Government would be giving in to a bunch of law-breakers. The first people to call for independent scrutiny were the original protest group, the entirely law-abiding Skye Bridge Appeal Group. Its treasurer, Kathleen MacRae, who has yet to drive her car across

the bridge, recalls: ''We wanted independent scrutiny; in fact, we wanted

a public inquiry. We saw this as en-

tirely reasonable because of the highly questionable prosecution of this project. We were calling for that years ago

and certainly as far as we were concerned we had the support of our patrons, who at that time included Brian Wilson and Calum Macdonald, now Scottish Office Ministers.''