The more you read, the more you learn.
This site points out that the Law Lords purposely ducked the issue of whether Holyrood had the competence to call an independence referendum without Westminster’s approval.
The claim of the Supremacy of Parliament originates in Dicey in the late nineteenth century, nearly two centuries after the Treaty of Union.
“The Union of 1707 occupies an anomalous position in British constitutional theory. The overwhelmingly dominant doctrine in British constitutional interpretation is that formulated by A.V. Dicey (1835-1922). Dicey held the view that parliament was supreme and unconfined, and that there was no fundamental law at the foundation of the British constitution. In other words, the British parliament is the supreme decision-making body in the realm, and nothing constrains it, not even the Union agreement itself. Indeed, Dicey was quite specific about the status of the Union, which was just an ordinary statute, as far as he was concerned, and enjoyed no special immunity from repeal and amendment by subsequent parliaments. The Act of Union had exactly the same status as the most humdrum piece of legislation: ‘neither the Act of Union with Scotland, nor the Dentists Act, 1878 has more claim than the other to be considered a supreme law.’ Diceyan orthodoxy long reigned supreme and unchallenged, as much in Scotland as south of the border.”
In the McCormick 1953 case Lord Cooper opined
“The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law…Considering that the Union legislation extinguished the parliaments of Scotland and England and replaced them by a new parliament, I have difficulty seeing why it should have been supposed that the new parliament of Great Britain must inherit all the peculiar characteristics of the English parliament but none of the Scottish parliament, as if all that happened in 1707 was that Scottish representatives were admitted to the parliament of England.”
Thus we have two opposing doctrines, Dicey and Cooper.
Modern interpretations favour the Cooper doctrine:
“In Gibson v Lord Advocate (1975), Lord Keith pondered the limits of parliament’s competence within the Union : ‘Like Lord Cooper, I prefer to reserve my opinion on what the position would be if the United Kingdom parliament passed an Act purporting to abolish the Court of Session or the Church of Scotland or to substitute English law for the whole body of Scots private law.’ Indeed, John MacCormick’s son, Professor Sir Neil MacCormick (1941-2009), Regius Professor of Public Law at Edinburgh, who was to become an SNP Member of the European Parliament, formulated a subtle revision of the standard formula of parliamentary sovereignty to take into account the status of the Union as a constitutive foundation of the British polity. In MacCormick’s formulation the Union was accorded recognition as the basis - however skeletal - of a post-1707 British constitution: ‘Whatever the Queen in Parliament enacts, unless in derogation from the justiciable limits set by the Articles of Union, is law’. The old unquestioned standards of Diceyan orthodoxy have been exposed to criticism from various quarters in recent decades, but none has been more sustained than the anti-Diceyan reading of the British Union-state and its constitution inaugurated by Cooper at Elizabeth II’s accession.”
So Parliamentary Supremacy is a claim rather than part of the law of the UK. The claim is heavily contested in Scottish matters.
Very interested to debate any cited opposition to this.
Still wasting for a reference to where in the Edinburgh Agreement it was stated that there could not be a second referendum.
Still waiting for a cite where both sides “agreed to be bound by a ‘no’ vote for a generation.”
Still waiting for your source other than Dicey’s more recently questioned contention, for those being in the ‘gift’ of Westminster.
Legal cite other than Dicey’s contention please.
Cite for NI ‘joining’ the UK in 1922.when the six counties had been ruled by the Crown for centuries, and by Westminster for 122 years.
Cite?
Although there is extra expenditure from the public purse in Scotland, this has been more than off set by inflow of money from Scottish oil fields over the past fifty years.
Please stick to facts, not false claims.
What about the 200 years before that?
Good historic argument of no current relevance.
Are we really accomplishing anything here?
Pjen, I see that on this page you are 29 of the 40 posts (72.5%). The previous page (Page 11) you were 27 of the 50 posts (54%). In addition, you’re 245 of the 590 posts (41.52%) in toto. In addition, for a thread supposedly about predictions in the upcoming UK general election it has again devolved into a semi-bitter argument about the niceties of Scottish independence. This thread is well and truly hijacked.
Now, I’m all for allowing threads to wander a bit. But you seem to be taking it to the level of obsession. In addition, you also seem to be taking the ‘drown them’ approach to debate. At one point - on this very page - you had 13 consecutive posts!
I’m not going to close this, not yet. But I’m damned if I can see what’s being accomplished.
My problem is that Steophan makes repeated unsupported claims, does not provide cites, and then hopes that his unsupported contentions will be accepted without any citation.
The ‘Parliament is supreme’ claim is a good example. This is an unsupported contention when discussing constitutional issues as I have proved by citation after citation.
It is difficult trying to debate with someone who thinks that their own beliefs are sufficient support for truth.
I am quite happy to take the issue to Great Debates if necessary and leave this thread for the 2015 election.
Would you prefer I did that. after all we are meant to be fighting ignorance.
"Ukip on track for 100-plus second places across England
Analysis predicts huge breakthrough as Nigel Farage provides main threat to three parties."
Major problem here as UKIP gets three times the SNP vote yet only a tenth of the SNP seats.
Have thought about this over night and have decided to open a Pit Thread on failure to supply or discuss cites and reliance on myth and ‘common sense’.
See you there.
At the Scottish Labour Party Conference, both Ed Miliband and Jim Murphy failed to rule out relying on the SNP to govern should it be a possibility in May.
It would be so simple to say it but they will not!
Margaret Curran was pressed very hard on this by Andrew Neill and was made to look very silly.
From today’s Record
Vernon Bogdanor on the 2015 and 2016 elections and the potential for a further referendum soon after.
He makes many points that support what I have been arguing:
That the SNP are in a win-win situation whatever the result of the 2015 election. Tory good, Labour better.
A majority 2016 election victory by the SNP would make it difficult to avoid a further prompt referendum.
That the Unionists have not learnt from the history of the separation of Ireland.
That the Union depends on consent of both parties.
That if there is a minority government after 2015, it will not be easy to cause an early second election as in 1974.
But of course he is only a Professor of Politics.
Four more posts in a row.
Enough, this is closed. You want to discuss Scottish independence? Start another thread. Go wild.
Do not hijack another thread about the subject. You won’t like the outcome.