The adage "You can't take it with you" may still apply, but, broadly speaking, under Scots law you can give it to anyone you like. At present the law does too little to protect those often most in need of support when someone dies: the surviving spouse and dependent children. There is nothing to prevent a negligent or capricious man from leaving his entire estate to a mistress, or even the local cat-and-dog home, while virtually disinheriting his family. And when someone dies intestate, his or her partner and children can find themselves near the end of the queue for consideration, behind the deceased person's parents, siblings and sometimes even their nephews and nieces.

The adage "You can't take it with you" may still apply, but, broadly speaking, under Scots law you can give it to anyone you like. At present the law does too little to protect those often most in need of support when someone dies: the surviving spouse and dependent children. There is nothing to prevent a negligent or capricious man from leaving his entire estate to a mistress, or even the local cat-and-dog home, while virtually disinheriting his family. And when someone dies intestate, his or her partner and children can find themselves near the end of the queue for consideration, behind the deceased person's parents, siblings and sometimes even their nephews and nieces.

Under yesterday's proposals from the Scottish Law Commission, that would change, with disinherited spouses (or civil partners) gaining entitlement to a share of the proceeds and dependent children eligible to apply to court for a lump sum. And where there is no will, the immediate family would be entitled to the lion's share. These changes are long overdue. It is right that inheritance law should attempt to strike a fair balance between the free will of the individual and the duty to provide for one's family, in the same way that the Child Support Agency attempts to do in the case of absent parents. Even under existing law there are restrictions on how individuals dispose of their wealth, but disinherited spouses and dependants cannot make a claim on land and buildings, which usually make up the bulk of the estate. This can produce hardship on top of heartbreak, especially where a man remarries, fails to update his will and then dies suddenly. Reform is overdue, though special consideration will be required for farms and landed estates.

It is also appropriate that cohabitees who are cut out or left out of their partner's will should be able to apply to court for a share of the inheritance. This simply brings the law into line with situations where an unmarried partner dies intestate. Because such relationships vary widely, there can be no rule of thumb capable of screening out "gold-diggers" while dealing fairly with a long-established, loving relationship.

The commission's most controversial proposal regards adult children. Currently, a grown-up son or daughter can appear after a 30-year absence and make a claim on a dying parent who wishes to leave their wealth to a loyal friend or a worthy cause. The commission is minded to restrict that right to dependent offspring, correctly in our view. These proposals should act as a timely reminder that everyone should make a will and keep it up to date. However, whether or not there is a will, there should be a way of obliging us to provide for those close to us.