Hang on! It says Judiciary of England and Wales. How can a matter under the jurisdiction of Scots Law be taken to a court of English Law?
Ask Alex Salmond, he has plenty to say on a court in England making decisions on cases of Scottish law.
It's because of this excuse for a court that we are having to give a murderer from Elgin a retrial, even though he had exhausted all his means of appeals through the Scottish courts.
The Supreme Court also replaced the House of Lords as the court of last resort for Scotland for civil cases.
This is one of the points that I believe annoys Salmond as, to some people, it suggests that the Scottish Courts are not competent enough to make legal decisions.
Off topic slightly but in the case of Fraser v HM Advocate, the only reason it ended up in front of the Supreme Court was because the Court of Criminal Appeal in Scotland were incompetent! Had they applied the legal test properly, they would've reached the same judgment. In fact had the Crown Office done their job properly in the first place and disclosed the evidence before the original trial, it's quite likely Fraser would never have been convicted in the first place. The non-disclosed evidence was crucial - the original trial Judge told the jury they were obliged to acquit Fraser if they were unsure about whether the rings were not present in the bathroom during the original search.
Not to mention that the entire Scottish legal system couldn't see how not having a solicitor present during police interviews undermined the right to a fair trial. Other ECHR cases held that denying legal advice could undermine the right to a fair trial. The outcome would have been the same in Strasbourg, only there wouldn't have been anyone with experience of Scots Law involved (unlike the UKSC where the two Scottish judges usually both sit on all Scottish cases and the other judges defer to their expertise).
The Scottish legal system needs to take a long hard look at themselves before criticising the Supreme Court.