SPEEDING costs lives, abusing bus lanes worsens congestion, and drink-driving is one of the ultimate examples of social irresponsibility.

So we have no truck, so to speak, with the campaign to portray innocent motorists as victims and milch cows. Oddly, this view persists in the same quarters where the demand for a tough approach to law and order is most prevalent.

There is, however, a caveat to all this. Fines exist, and should exist solely, to punish wrong-doing, not as a fund-raising mechanism.

For all that some motorists grumble about restrictions on their freedom to drive irresponsibly, there can currently be no real justification for the notion that they are simply being taxed via the back door. This is because fines do not go towards police funding, nor even to the Scottish Government's budget. They go straight back to HM Treasury.

But that could be about to change, and the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents are right to point out that there are potential dangers in this in terms of the relationship between police and public.

A little-noticed clause buried at the end of the Smith Commission proposals, agreed on a cross-party basis, suggests that income from fines should be devolved, with a matching cut in the Scottish funding block coming via the Barnett formula. If this happened - and it is only a proposal at this stage - then for the first time it could be argued that would be a direct linkage between pursuing tougher policies and higher fines, and funding for public services.

That principle has already been breached in theory with money from seizures from organised crime going directly into the Cashback for Communities scheme, and should such seizures reach a specified level there could be a windfall for Police Scotland.

But there is a world of difference between tackling serious and organised crime and dealing with otherwise law-abiding citizens who breach road traffic laws. As Niven Rennie of the superintendents' association points out: "There is a risk that policing in Scotland becomes locked in to a cycle of having to increase fines revenue to maintain funding.

"This would be detrimental to our relationship with the public and open the service and our officers to constant criticism that we're issuing tickets to raise revenue. Ultimately this is a decision for politicians and policy makers but I believe we should at least highlight the risk."

He is correct. Motorists in particular already believe this is happening, even although the £45m raised in fiscal penalties goes to the Treasury. Once the linkage is changed, the arguments will become even more heated.

Police Scotland faces enough problems at the moment with a funding shortfall, criticism from the Audit Commission, a perception of poor oversight by the Scottish Police Authority and a widespread perception that its policies have become those of the Strathclyde force writ large. As the row over armed police officers attending routine events showed, perception is everything. We must avoid our police being dragged into further political controversy.