THE Scottish judiciary has criticised Government proposals to reform the regulation of the legal profession as an unwarranted and unacceptable interference with the rule of law (“Judges label legal reform plans a ‘clear threat’ to the rule of law”, The Herald, January 12). They say that political regulation of the legal profession is simply not appropriate under any circumstances. These proposals, however, have been in place for several years and one might ask why the judiciary has offered this wisdom at this late stage after the public consultation has been closed.

Might the judges have been influenced by the degree of respect which the Scottish Government displayed for the legal profession and the legal process in general following events of about a year ago? That was when the Scottish Government was forced to publish the advice it had received from its own legal counsel. That advice stated that the Scottish Government had furnished information which was false and untruthful in the course of litigation with a former First Minister. The consequence of the uncovering of that false and untruthful evidence were that the Scottish Government immediately had to concede the legal proceedings at a cost to the taxpayer of approximately £1 million. One might expect that the Scottish Government would be better served by the legal process in the future if the regulation of the legal profession were brought under the Government’s own control and the judiciary excluded from that function. That would better enable the Scottish Government to furnish evidence in future litigation calculated to achieve the justice that it wanted, rather than the justice which it deserved.

The period of public consultation upon these measures has now closed but most people were probably unaware of it in any case and those with an interest in the future of Scottish justice should now request the Scottish Government to bin the proposed reforms and the Scottish Parliament to reject them if the Scottish Government were to seek to legislate upon them.

Michael Sheridan, Glasgow.

* MAY I sincerely wish Lord Carloway every success in his opposition to the Scottish Government’s plans to reform (political speak to interfere in /control) the Scottish legal system.

I will not waste your space or my time by listing the disasters that have been inflicted on other key institutions, all of which are essential to the wellbeing of a free society, by a set of politicians who are hell-bent on central control, thus weakening the democratic process.

Dan Edgar, Rothesay.

MAKE OUR ROADS LESS HOSTILE

OF all the complaints that Lisella Hutton (Letters, January 13) makes about cyclists, only the failure to wear hi-viz is not already illegal. What we are lacking is enforcement.

I would note, though, that the majority of pavement cyclists I see tend to be slow and careful round pedestrians – probably because the cyclist will come off just as badly as, if not worse than, the pedestrian in the event of a collision. Which isn't to say that they are not an annoying nuisance but, given the way some drivers behave, I can understand them feeling safer on the pavement.

As for hi-viz, what use is it on the pavement? For cyclists on the road, various studies have shown that hi-viz makes no difference as far as driver behaviour is concerned, though good lights are an absolute requirement at night. Similarly, the effectiveness of cycle helmets in a crash is at best questionable. One famous study even showed that drivers passed helmeted cyclists more closely than they passed non-helmeted cyclists.

The answer to the problem lies in making the roads less hostile with lower speed limits and more segregated cycling facilities – which might even get some people out of their cars and onto their bikes.

Boyd Johnston, Paisley.

SYMPATHY FOR ANDREW'S FAMILY

THERE has been extensive speculation concerning the consequences of the recent developments in relation to the civil lawsuit brought against Prince Andrew by Virginia Giuffre in the United States ("Duke stripped of military roles and loses use of HRH", The Herald, January 14). That speculation has covered in detail such aspects as the long-term effects on the future stability of the monarchy, the loss of status sustained by the Prince, how the defence of the litigation can be sustained financially, the difficulties associated with the Prince ever seeking to settle the action given his repeated statements asserting his innocence, and his disastrous misjudgement in the first place in getting so close to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

In the face of that barrage of publicity, one is left wondering from a human point of view, rather than a state or institutional one: what is the Queen, as an elderly mother, actually making of this furore surrounding Prince Andrew, often referred to as her favourite son, particularly in the year of her Platinum Jubilee? And how are his daughters, Beatrice and Eugenie, endeavouring to cope with this tsunami of awful news engulfing their father? One is not likely to get answers to these questions. However , I am sure that many will be sympathetic to their positions.

Ian W Thomson, Lenzie.

* WITH Burns Night coming up – and in connection with the Duke of York shedding his HRH – it seems appropriate to recall the poem A Man’s a Man for A' That. It has the memorable line regarding titles that "the rank is but the guinea's stamp".

Prince Charles, we hear, is talking about a "slimmed-down monarchy". Hopefully this will include cutting down on all the medieval flummery of titles.

Andrew McLuskey, Ashford, Middlesex.

POCKET WISDOM

I DON’T begrudge the Duchess of Cambridge, or Maggie Ritchie et al, pockets, once territory for men only, in their skirts and dresses ("Women of the world (and Kate) demand equal pockets", The Herald, January 14 ).

Indeed, I am happy that they are spared the the treacherous zipper which replaced the precious fly button-hole apparatus in the 1950s, the danger of which is well-known to anyone who has worked in A&E.

Just a word of caution from PJ O’ Rourke, American satirist and political commentator: “The only really firm rule about cross-dressing is that neither sex should ever wear anything they haven’t yet figured out how to go to the bathroom in.”

R Russell Smith, Largs.