It's worth taking a step back at this point and recalling where we were a few weeks ago. Why did the UK decide in the first place to start defying the World Health Organization by no longer taking sufficient steps to suppress the virus? The main argument seemed to be that there was no point in any single country trying to control the virus within its borders (as both China and South Korea have shown can successfully be done) when spread is global - in other words, in an interconnected world, a country cannot protect itself from a pandemic.
But you may have noticed that the world has changed a fair bit over the last few days, let alone over the last few weeks. Countries within the EU's Schengen passport-free zone have either closed their borders entirely or introduced strict border controls. Remarkably, even Germany have done the latter, in spite of Angela Merkel insisting only a few days ago that free movement was sacred. Countries further afield that have relatively low infection rates, such as New Zealand, have introduced quarantining for all arrivals. Many of these measures are billed as temporary, but the likelihood is they'll be extended again and again. Some countries may well try to stick it out until there is a vaccine, or at the very least an effective treatment. The interconnected world is essentially gone for the foreseeable future, so that excuse for UK inaction no longer exists. If we took South Korean-style measures to suppress the virus and then introduced quarantining to prevent it from being reimported, we would not become international pariahs - we'd be applauded for doing the right thing.
Once again, I recommend this interview with the WHO's Bruce Aylward for anyone who wrongly thinks that the virus cannot be controlled, or that it can only be controlled with authoritarian measures that would not be viable in this country. The key is large-scale testing and meticulous contact tracing - something that the UK has just inexplicably turned its back on. We were told by Chris Whitty that the "early stages of delay" would be very similar to "contain", with continued testing-and-tracing, but that turned out to essentially be a lie. We've gone direct from "contain" to "mitigate" without passing Go - something which the WHO begged all countries not to do and warned would lead to the health system being totally overwhelmed. Ironically, that just makes the most authoritarian outcome (total lockdown) more likely, not less so.
As far as the Scottish Government's role in all this is concerned, it's true that devolution means there are some things they can do and some things they can't. But to the extent that their actions are helping to facilitate the UK government's plans to allow the virus to spread, they need to urgently look at themselves in the mirror and ask themselves why they're doing that. If it's because they think there's more political cover in mostly going along with whatever the UK government decide, or if it's because they fear being lambasted for breaking a UK consensus, then those are the wrong reasons. Nicola Sturgeon and her ministers should be taking every possible step to suppress this virus and to protect the people of Scotland, no matter what the political cost.