NICOLA Sturgeon has spoken out after the UK Supreme Court ruled that the Scottish Parliament’s children’s rights bill went beyond the legislative competence of Holyrood.

Ahead of the Scottish Parliament election in May, the UK Government decided to take Holyrood to court over the bill, which was backed unanimously by MSPs and would incorporate the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child into Scottish law.

UK ministers also challenged the European Charter of Local Self-Government bill, suggesting it too went beyond Holyrood’s competence.

The National:

This morning, judges on the Supreme Court decided that both pieces of legislation are beyond Holyrood’s competence – a ministerial statement on the ruling is due later today.

First Minister Sturgeon, who previously called the UK move to challenge the bills in court “morally repugnant”, spoke out following the judge’s ruling.

She quoted from National columnist and legal expert Andrew Tickell who warned: “Westminster will be able to pass legislation with violates children’s rights in devolved areas without these being challengeable in the courts, on the basis that the UK Parliament must have ‘unqualified legislative power’ to make laws, even in clearly devolved areas.”

The First Minister said Tickell’s characterisation showed the implication of the judgement “in a nutshell”.

READ MORE: David Allen Green accuses Boris Johnson's government of 'sheer hypocrisy'

She warned: “The current powers of [the Scottish Parliament] leave us unable to fully protect children’s rights, even in devolved areas. If our parliament was independent, no such restriction would apply.

“Anyone thinking this is an abstract argument should reflect that also today, the UK Government is taking £20pw from the pockets of the poorest families – making it harder for many parents to provide essentials for their children.”

Judges were asked to consider whether the two bills could give Scottish courts “unparalleled” powers to strike down legislation from the UK Parliament.

They said the bills would return to the Scottish Parliament so issues could receive further consideration.

Five Supreme Court judges, who are based in London, had considered arguments at a hearing in June.

A barrister representing the Attorney General, and the Advocate General for Scotland, told the court that the case concerned “whether the Scottish Parliament has the legislative competence to subject acts of the UK Parliament with the need to comply with the UNCRC and to assign or delegate to the Scottish courts powers to strike down, rewrite or declare incompatible provisions of the acts of the sovereign UK Parliament”.

Sir James Eadie QC said: “Both bills, in slightly different ways, purport to bestow upon the Scottish courts extensive and, in part, unparalleled powers to interpret and to scrutinise the legality of primary legislation passed by the sovereign UK Parliament at Westminster.”

Judges were told that the UK Government had said its concerns were “not about the substance of the legislation” but whether the Scottish Parliament had the legal ability to pass the bills.