You're conflating two different issues. Yes, Scala allows null and yes, this is unfortunate, though it raises the question of whether there's any better way to do Java interop (you can either assume all Java calls are non-null unless checked, assume all Java calls are nullable and force checking, or trust annotations; all these approaches suck in their own way). It can be mitigated with WartRemover.

But the right way to represent absence - whether you call it null or option or something else - is clearly with a normal type that follows the normal rules of the language, not a special language-builtin type with special language-builtin rules. Some light syntactic sugar for commonly-used types makes sense (like Ceylon's "?"), but what it desugars to should always be something you could write a normal library type for. Indeed if your language doesn't let you implement the constructs you need for this kind of type in a custom type in a library, that should be a red flag that your language isn't expressive enough for general-purpose use.