The Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland, has criticised the quality of the decisions of the Supreme Court on the basis that courts “of a particular jurisdiction have a better understanding of the criminal law of that jurisdiction”.

He added that Scots judges are “better able” to make the decision on whether a case is a matter of general public importance.

His comments follow the intervention of the Supreme Court in a series of cases, most significantly the Nat Fraser and Cadder cases, in which the Scottish Courts were found to have reached decisions incompatible with long established human rights obligations.

Mulholland said that he was not being disrespectful to the Supreme Court.

“I'm not advocating the abolition of the Supreme Court. The point is that just because there has been a decision in the Supreme Court it does not mean it will be correct or that will be the end of it,” he said.

“Scottish judges have been accused of immaturity and being grudging in their approach in granting leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, but if that is the case, how would it explain the Scottish judges' recommendation to expand the Supreme Court's jurisdiction?

"The courts of a particular jurisdiction have a better understanding of the criminal law of that jurisdiction. Judges in Scotland have got their finger on the pulse of the issues in Scotland and are better able to make a decision on whether a case is a matter of general public importance.

"This is not a criticism of Supreme Court judges. It is just a recognition of the fact that being a court of reference, they don't have their finger on the pulse because they are not dealing with Scottish issues daily."

Mulholland also advocated permitting Scottish Courts to appeal directly to the European Court of Human Rights, rather than through the UK Government and Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Last year, advocate and former Crown Counsel Jock Thompson QC said that the Crown Office and “Law officers in particular must bear much of the responsibility for bringing about the embarrassments of Cadder and Fraser.”

“The appointment of career prosecutors/civil servants to the Law Officers posts was and continues to be an unhealthy situation to say the least,” he said.

“There is the additional factor that the Law Officers being career prosecutor civil servants are essentially seen as working closely with as opposed to independently of government ministers.”

He added: “The rot set in, in my opinion, with the unprecedented appointment of a career prosecutor - a member of COPFS - as Solicitor General: Elish Angiolini QC. She went on to become Lord Advocate. The vacancy that created was filled by another civil servant/member of COPFS/career prosecutor: Frank Mulholland QC”

The recommendations of the Supreme Court review group which undertook a re-evaluation of the role of the Supreme Court in criminal cases have yet to be implemented.