One of the central problems in juvenile justice has always been in a choice between strict legalism and administrative, discretionary justice in dealing with juvenile delinquents. The solutions arrived at in England and Scotland diverge widely, although both are based on a common concern. England chose the legalistic mode of thought in juvenile justice, while Scotland followed the path of administrative and discretionary justice, under the guiding principle of children's welfare and needs. Critics of welfarism and advocates of more traditional forms of juvenile delinquency control, including corporal punishment, are concerned with the excessive leniency of the Scottish model. It is also contended that this system affords insufficient legal protection to children. The inherent ambiguity of dealing with children who commit offenses in terms of welfare principles is basic to the controversy over this system. In the final analysis, there is a real danger that Scotland may end up with two systems of juvenile justice instead of one, which will surely not resolve the contradictions between the legal and welfare modes of thought in Scottish juvenile justice. Nineteen references are appended.