A flagship government plan to assign a state-appointed figure to oversee the welfare of every child in Scotland has been blocked after the Supreme Court ruled that the controversial named person's scheme was unlawful.

The ruling comes after a series of legal challenges to the Scottish Government’s plan to appoint a named person, usually a health visitor or teacher, who would have had the power to share concerns about a child's welfare with other agencies, potentially without consent from the child of their parents.

Judges said the proposals breach rights to privacy and a family life under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The named person would have acted as point of contact for advice or concern about a child, however parents would not have been allowed to opt out of the scheme. 

Campaigners supporting the No to Named Persons (NO2NP) campaign were celebrating their £250,000 legal casesucceeded in the UK’s highest court this morning.

They insisted the controversial legislation, drawn up by the SNP, claimed that the compulsory named person policy breaches human rights by interfering with the right to a family life as well as data protection laws. 

Speaking before the ruling, Liz Smith, the Tory education spokeswoman at Holyrood, said: "Clearly we don’t know what the court judgment will be, but irrespective of the outcome l am sure the majority of parents still want to see the scheme dropped.

"So too do the growing number of practitioners who believe the policy is unworkable and taking far too much focus away from our most vulnerable children. It is a deeply unpopular, illiberal policy which has become a real headache for the SNP. The First Minister should swallow her pride and end it now."