This is true but the distinction is pretty minimal. Scots judges have traditionally followed the English lead seeing no sense in having different interpretations North and South of the border for the same story in potentially the same publication.
About the only real difference when it comes to defence is that up here you can defend something based on it being made in the heat of an argument, and that the person claiming defamation has to be able to show harm (though not necessarily financial).
Having been involved on the periphery of a major criminal case which started off as a defamation case (there being no libel in Scotland) I can assure you that that is not the case. Scottish Defamation and English Libel are quite different laws. A number of people have made good money from arbitraging the difference.
I know there are a lot of differences (I'm English and live in Scotland), just my understanding of libel / defamation is that broadly the nature of rulings was similar - essentially that Scotland's system while slightly different wasn't that much better than the English system.
About the only real difference when it comes to defence is that up here you can defend something based on it being made in the heat of an argument, and that the person claiming defamation has to be able to show harm (though not necessarily financial).