"Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall".

There have been few better illustrations of the truth of that biblical proverb than Alex Salmond’s behaviour in his spat with the legal establishment (“Leading lawyer to sue First Minister”, The Herald, June 16).

During the election, Mr Salmond appeared to be walking on water; now we can see that it was in fact ice, and he’s fallen through it.

The intemperate language used by Mr Salmond in his attack on our courts is deeply worrying. Of even greater concern is his apparent belief, shared by his Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, that the people of Scotland don’t deserve the same civil rights as everyone else in Europe.

As Professor Peter Duff writes, some of the comments coming from the Scottish Government wouldn’t be out of place in Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe (“Debate over court is now a dogfight”, The Herald, June 16). I used to think the SNP had a positive vision for Scotland, even if it was wrong about how to get there.

Now it looks as if it wants a narrow, introverted Scotland, where the Government tells the courts what to do and individuals have no avenue for redress if their rights are trampled on.

To the layman, both the Cadder and Fraser rulings by the Supreme Court appear reasonable. It would be useful if Mr Salmond indicated exactly what he finds objectionable in them. Is it simply the fact that the court happens to sit in London, or does Mr Salmond really want Scots to be held for questioning without legal assistance and to be denied the right to a fair trial?

The courts have a vital role in protecting the rights of our citizens and I hope they’ll continue to stand up to hectoring politicians.

Doug Maughan,

52 Menteith View,

Dunblane.

IF I were Professor Tony Kelly, I would not seek to pursue the First Minister in the English courts for a number of very good reasons. A lawyer should take in his stride any number of insults from a politician on the make – even assuming that the remarks were defamatory.

The First Minister is loose with language and, happily in my view, he has started hanging himself publicly already.

However, should the matter proceed to law, then we should have the quite extraordinary spectacle of the First Minister relying on English justice, and the English judiciary, to defend himself. I can’t wait for that one.

Who knows, it might go even to The Supreme Court.

If any lawyer should be pursuing the First Minister in the courts, surely it should be Lord Hope of Craighead, Deputy President of The Supreme Court.

John Macaulay,

46 London Road, Glasgow.

It is a fundamental right of all citizens of the UK to be able to appeal to a Supreme Court just as they had the right to appeal to the House of Lords.

This right of appeal must never be denied or brought into disrepute just because Alex Salmond does not like the outcome of some appeals.

His personal attacks on individual members of the Supreme Court are particularly un-statesmanlike and do no credit to the Office of First Minister.

To become a member of the Supreme Court a judge must have spent a working lifetime studying all aspects of the law of the land and be seen to have been able to dispense justice in an impartial manner without fear or favour to all who come before them over many years, regardless of which political party is in power at any given time. What does it take to become a politician?

Ian McMickan,

2 Galla Crescent,

Dalbeattie,

Kirkcudbrightshire.

The Caledonian antisyzygy is alive and well and is to be exemplified by the recent conduct of our First Minister when dealing with legal matters. It did not take long for the patina of statesmanship to dissolve to permit the re emergence of the ranting roaring birkie of old.

John W Elliott,

19 Gordon Avenue,

Bishopton,

Renfrewshire.

I should like to express my appreciation to Iain Macwhirter for his analysis of the current controversy concerning Scots Law (“Alex Salmond has a point in this war of the wigs”, The Herald, June 16).

His articles are lucid, informative, balanced and not without a touch of humour.

It may well be that some of the remarks made by SNP politicians have been somewhat intemperate. It may also be that Sots Law is not free of blemishes. But, at a time when Scots legal luminaries are lining up to demonise politicians anxious to defend Scots Law, a bit of balance is encouraging.

Ian Ross,

3 Kenbank Crescent,

Bridge of Weir..