Corroboration is a safeguard against flawed accusations being given more credence than they deserve. There needs to be something to support an allegation other

Corroboration is a safeguard against flawed accusations being given more credence than they deserve. There needs to be something to support an allegation other than simply 'me' accusing 'you' of a criminal act. While this is perhaps not called 'corroboration' in the way it is enshrined in current Scottish legislation, it is generally required - indeed, the Grand Jury in this case are, as I understand it, tasked with considering the allegation and any evidence the police have in order to consider if the allegation has merit before the case can proceed. To my mind, this sounds like a corroboration requirement by a different name. While Scotland has it's share of miscarriages of justice, corroboration does act as a safeguard against some of the circumstances where a miscarriage can happen. The concentration on various 'straw men' - typically involving cases of uncorroborated claims of sexual assaults as these are highly emotive - in the debate is a disservice which is setting Scotland up to become little more than a series of kangaroo courts (in my opinion). In the particular cases of [extremely rare] uncorroborated sexual assaults, convictions are often obtainable via the Moorov Doctrine where the same accused has often engaged in multiple independent acts which, as a whole, are considered corroboration. [In "American": the same MO points to the single suspect.] [Sexual assaults often have forensic evidence as corroboration so unlike the emotive arguments put forward, they do not actually always end up as he-said, she-said credibility competitions.]