Leader: Judiciary must be free of political interference

For this reason, any attempt by politicians to influence and regulate the legal sector is bound to attract controversy.

The Scottish Government says its proposed Regulation of Legal Services (Scotland) Bill would enshrine the promotion of a “diverse” profession and “improve the transparency and accountability of legal services regulation, taking into account public and consumer interests”.

But the response from lawyers is scathing. The Law Society warns autocratic regimes could cite Scotland as an example to justify imposing similar controls over lawyers in their countries.

The Faculty of Advocates says the Bill could be a “back door” through which politicians may seek to control the profession “whose role is often to hold the Executive to account”.

And the Senators of the College of Justice warn the plans are “a threat to the independence of the legal profession and the judiciary”.

In the face of such vociferous opposition from across the legal profession, the Scottish Government must present a strong and convincing case for its proposals.

And yet where is the public clamour to “improve transparency and accountability” in the legal profession?

The public might well be more concerned with seeing the independence of the judiciary protected from the manoeuvrings of the politicians of the day and their centralising instincts.

The separation of powers among the executive, the legislature and the judiciary is essential in a democracy. Lawyers must be free to do their jobs without interference or fear of consequences.

Perhaps the authors of the Bill do not understand the importance of the separation of powers.

Far worse would be the alternative possibility that they do understand these valid and serious concerns but choose to disregard them.