AS Keynes said: "When my information changes, I alter my conclusions.

What do you do, sir?" There will be much triumphalism from political opponents about the Scottish Government's decision to drop the abolition of the need for corroborative evidence in criminal cases, and we celebrate that decision.

But we also celebrate the politics of admitting a mistake. Irrational fear of the u-turn has propelled too many politicians to dig a deeper hole, so this decision is welcome. There is also the caveat that we are suspicious of the timing, with Holyrood empty of foot soldiers out tramping Westminster constituencies. It could be seen as a fine day to bury bad news.

But in the longer term this debate may be of value. We opposed the abolition of the requirement for corroboration in our criminal courts, but we were never blind to the argument by former Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill that the quality of evidence can be more important than the quantity, and that the need for reform was particularly pressing in cases of sexual assault.

Lord Bonomy suggested in his review of the proposals that corroboration should be retained for evidence based on confession or hearsay, something we regard as unarguable. Justice Secretary Michael Matheson could have accepted this as an exception and pressed on with abolition, but, to his credit, he did not.

He decided that if we are to build in exceptions to the abolition of corroboration, with doubts on all sides from the legal profession to the civil liberties lobby, it is better to start again.

As he said of Lord Bonomy's series of qualifications: "I do not consider there is sufficient time to complete this work before the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill resumes its parliamentary passage.

"On that basis, it is clear to me that proceeding with the removal of the corroboration requirement in that Bill would be neither appropriate nor feasible."

Campaigners on behalf of violence against women will be bitterly disappointed and that is understandable. No crimes were more affected by the proposed abolition of corroboration than those in the area of domestic and sexual violence, but if Mr Matheson believes better legislation can be brought forward swiftly we must support that, and hope they do too.

We trust fresh legislation will offer an opportunity for new thinking. On an issue as important as this there has been a whiff of vested interest from the legal community and of opportunism from the Scottish Government's political opponents. All may find it possible to come to this issue afresh.

Kenny MacAskill made a number of brave decisions over his time in office, but latterly he was too quick to defend Police Scotland when there were legitimate concerns over issues such as stop and search and armed officers. Now Mr Matheson has shown a willingness to start with a clean sheet.

Will his political opponents be content to snipe? Or will they be willing to engage with a new approach, for example, to moderating our laws on corroboration to accommodate the likes of DNA technology while retaining safeguards for the rights of the accused?

In the whole area of Scots Law it can be far too easy to say our system is some kind of pinnacle, beyond all questions. It was right that corroboration was defended, but it is right that corroboration be questioned. Mr Matheson has a chance to make a mark with his approach when returning to the issue.