You didn't respond. You simply stated a bunch of things which were true, but were not related to the point. You did NOT answer the question "Why does it take 14 Judges to answer such a simple point of law?"
Here are some possible ACTUAL answers to the question.
1."Because the point of law was not clear and not clearly settled."
2. " Because the Judges were really stupid in those days, and it took a whole lot of them to figure out simple points of law."
3. " The King wanted a specific ruling, and he wanted a LOT of Judges to announce it so as to lend it the appearance of Authoritative and Legal legitimacy."
4. ___________________________________________________________________________ (This space is for you to fill in YOUR answer.)
Now how about an actual answer?
Even though James VI became king of England as well as of Scotland, the two countries were still two separate countries, with different parliaments, different administrations, different legal systems...
Full unification of the two countries into one didn't take place until a century or so later.
Again, you are saying things which are true, but unrelated to the point. Once James I took the throne, His Subject law applied in Scotland too. Such a well established law should not have required the massive court hearing which it subsequently created. The first Magistrate they found should have resolved it quickly. (or peasant, as the case may be.)
Again, if the law was so well established, why did it take 14 Judges to figure it out?
First of all, it wasn't such a simple point of law, as England had never before had a situation in which the King of England was also the King of another, separate, distinct country.
Secondly, they assembled "all the judges of England" to hear the case because they felt the decision had important ramifications. And it did.