Both the Herald and the Guardian have the same approach to this story, blaming the First Minister for something to cannot do and which Scotland cannot do:
The Guardian has a similar headline to the Herald above with:
Humza Yousaf accused of ‘failure’ over children’s rights delays in Scotland
Here’s the ‘accusation’:
In one of his final interviews before he steps down from the role after six years, Bruce Adamson accused Scottish ministers of “heartbreaking” delays, lack of transparency and “constant broken promises”, after the supreme court ruled that initial attempts at incorporating the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) into domestic law went beyond Holyrood’s powers.
Although the UK government has previously said it agrees with the principles of the convention, Scotland is the first part of the UK to try to fully include it in domestic law, which would make the rights legally enforceable.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/01/commissioner-bruce-adamson-calls-on-humza-yousaf-strengthen-childrens-rights
Note ‘the supreme court?’ It’s the UK Supreme Court not to be confused with the ‘High Court of Justiciary’ in Scotland which had no part in this.
So, Scotland is trying to lead the way on children’s rights but is being denied the ability to introduce progressive legislation, once again, by the UK Supreme Court? That’s the real story here, not Humza?
Talking-up Scotland 
I agree – an utterly shameful headline from the Grauniad. They seem to be going full-on Yoon recently – maybe they need the secret government subsidy?
LikeLiked by 4 people
This is full on ‘ Gaslighting’
LikeLiked by 4 people
At least Libby Brooks included “It is important to remember that although the UK ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) in 1991, it has done little to implement these rights into its national legal framework. The strongest children’s rights protections in the UK have been through efforts in the devolved nations”, despite leaping on Bruce Adamson’s statement for the headline.
SG has long struggled with the foot-dragging prevalent in Westminster, but as recent events have demonstrated, those in power are so wrapped up in their politics that progress has gone in reverse.
The SC is not randomly examining these Bills, they are specifically referred to them for clarification in Law by mendacious Tories obsessed with scoring political points.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Blair set up the Supreme Court,ostensibly to save people from having to travel to a foreign country to obtain legal rulings (EU).
In reality,it’s main purpose was to ensure that Scots law would always be subservient to English Law and that London rule would prevail in Scotland.
So,no surprises when this court strikes down Scottish legislation which hasn’t been approved by Westminster.
As things stand,we might as well not have a parliament or separate legal establishment because,all that the present system is allowed to do is rubber stamp legislation made in England.
LikeLiked by 4 people
“As things stand,we might as well not have a parliament or separate legal establishment because,all that the present system is allowed to do is rubber stamp legislation made in England.”
Would this not be part of Westminster’s argument to justify reversing devolution and scrapping our real Government?
LikeLike