There has been some scepticism about the idea that Scotland is politically more progressive than England, as claimed in the referendum campaign.

Yet you couldn't get a starker example than the current divergence of routes and ideas on human rights.

The draft constitution the Scottish Government proposed in the summer called for an extension of human rights, but UK Justice Secretary Chris Grayling has published a paper looking at how they might be rolled back. While the deputy first minister and likely future SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon has talked about founding policy on internationally recognised human rights, Mr Grayling does not wish to have to abide by decisions from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and is willing, if necessary, to withdraw from the European convention on human rights .

Conservative concern is based on the view that decisions about applying human rights should be made at home, under a British Bill of Rights. It is a response to views of many on the right of the party that Strasbourg has too much influence on laws in the UK.

Mr Grayling says the ECHR is moving into "areas of life" where people don't want to see human rights applied. This is an extraordinary statement.

Human rights cannot be partial. People are genuinely concerned that criminals or illegal immigrants appear to benefit from rights, while "ordinary citizens" do not.

But the solution is for a better awareness of human rights so that all can benefit, rather than identifying some groups to whom they do not apply such as immigrants or prisoners.

Several of these stories are apocryphal in any case. Former Attorney General Dominic Grieve says a minority of problematic decisions distort perception of the ECHR.

The ban on prisoner voting was not in itself ruled unlawful by the court, it was its blanket nature which breached rights. The ECHR did not prevent the imposition of whole-life tarrifs for prisoners and again merely required an adjustment of the UK's rules.

Such myths thrive, building up public hostility, while too little attention is paid to the gains achieved under the ECHR. Professor Alan Miller of Scotland's Human Rights Commission says these include exposing fatal failures in hospitals and care homes and challenging the bedroom tax. Bizarrely, Mr Grayling's paper makes no mention of the fact that the ECHR is written into Scotland's devolution settlement and the Good Friday Agreement.

It is hard to escape the idea that this is an ill-thought-through plan timed to coincide with a difficult bye-election. The protections afforded by the convention are real. That is why the UK Government - a Conservative government - helped establish it. Any reform needed is best achieved by remaining inside the ECHR.

Meanwhile, should Mr Grayling's misguided proposals be realised, and the rest of the UK withdraw from the convention, Scotland should do as Scottish Secretary Alistair Carmichael has suggested, remain a signatory to the convention and go its own way.