AS WOMEN'S support groups in England and Wales expressed delight yesterday at plans to prevent alleged rapists from personally cross-examining their victims in court, their counterparts in Scotland could only watch with interest and a little envy.

Despite the fact that Scots Law does not specifically prohibit an accused from cross-examining the alleged victim, the proposals outlined by Home Secretary Jack Straw appear unlikely to be adopted north of the Border.

Mr Straw's action follows the horrific ordeal suffered by Julia Mason, a mother of two, who was sexually assaulted for 16 hours by rapist Ralston Edwards and was then cross-examined by him for six days when the case came to court in 1996. Edwards, who wore the same clothes in court that he had worn to attack his victim, went into the most minute and disturbing detail of the rape during the cross-examination.

Ms Mason, who went public after the case to try to stop another woman suffering the same ordeal, had to run from the court during her testimony and was prescribed tranquillisers. The following year a second convicted rapist on trial for indecent assault made his victim describe his genitals in court in graphic detail.

The Mason case in particular caused a massive public outcry, and in June 1997 Prime Minister Tony Blair said he had been sickened by Ms Mason's experience. He promised a wide-ranging review across the criminal justice system which, among other things, would look at the question of providing greater protection for victims in cases of rape and serious sexual offences. A separate review was carried out in Scotland and is due to report within the next few months.

Mr Straw told the Police Federation Conference in Bournemouth yesterday that safeguards were proposed to prevent defendants from questioning the victims themselves. They would automatically be given legal aid to hire a lawyer and, if they declined to do so, the court would appoint someone to put the questions. In addition, in future it would be made much more difficult for courts to press a woman on her past sexual history. The proposals will be published in a consultation document next month.

Mr Straw told the conference that police treatment of rape victims has greatly improved over the past decade but that had not been reflected elsewhere in the criminal justice system. Despite a rise in the number of rapes reported, he said, the number of convictions had remained constant.

A spokesman for the Scottish Office said the working group looking at the same issues in Scotland had yet to publish their report, but added: ''In Scotland we have not had so far the same high profile cases that they have had south of the Border in terms of cross-examination of rape victims. The understanding is that trial judges have the power to prevent such cross-examination taking place and would use that power.''

Rosina McRae, of Zero Tolerance, however, said they would need better assurances that Ms Mason's ordeal could not be repeated in Scotland.

''It would be a great pity if the Scottish Office did not take the same line,'' she said. ''The main case this stemmed from was in England but my understanding is that the possibility exists within Scots Law for the same situation to arise, and if the Government has decided it is wrong for that to happen, which we would wholeheartedly agree with, it would be sensible to make the same arrangements for Scots law.

''We would like an assurance that this is not possible within Scots law. If the Scottish Office can't give us that assurance, then the law needs to be changed.''

Sandy Brindley, of Glasgow's Rape Crisis Centre, said despite the fact that the practice of Scottish courts appeared to lessen the chance of a victim being questioned by her alleged attacker, there was no reason why safeguards could not be put in place to ensure it could not happen.

''It is technically possible for an accused to cross-examine the victim,'' she said. ''There are some who think that here the judges do seem to have more of an impetus to intervene but it is still theoretically possible for this to happen. So, as a safeguard, why not have the same system here, just to make sure the situation does not arise? There may not have been a case yet in Scotland, but there is nothing in law to stop it happening.''

However, Professor Alan Miller, of the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties, said the Scottish Office should not necessarily jump to copy the English proposals. ''The problem, as far as I am aware, has not arisen in Scotland. We are on the threshold of a Scottish Parliament which will be under pressure to review many aspects of the criminal justice system. While there is dissatisfaction with many aspects of how the crime of rape is dealt with by the courts and how victims are treated, it would be premature to simply copy what is being suggested by Jack Straw.''

Whatever the outcome in Scotland, however, the support groups say the Home Secretary's plans must be put in context and there is still a huge amount of work to be done to address properly the broader issue of violence against women and the more specific problems of the reporting and prosecution of rape. Whether they are questioned by their attackers or not, all rape victims face a gruelling and often traumatic ordeal if they bring their attacker before the courts. ''The conviction rate for rape cases is only 9% and there has to be a real look at why that is,'' said Sandy Brindley. ''This is a fairly small step in the right direction but there is still a lot more action that needs to be taken. With the women we speak to, what tends to come up with them is their experience in court. They feel like they were raped a second time.''