scholarly journals Public Law Declarators, the Jurisdiction of the Court, and Scottish Independence: Keatings v Advocate General

2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 362-369
Author(s):  
Robert Brett Taylor
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in The UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill—A Reference by the Attorney General and the Advocate General for Scotland [2018] UKSC 64, Supreme Court. This case is concerned with the competencies of the Scottish Parliament, and the nature of devolution in the UK more generally. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.


Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case note summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of Miller and Cherry) v Prime Minister and Advocate General for Scotland [2019] UKSC 41, Supreme Court. This case concerned the constitutional-legal limits on a Prime Minister’s capacity to advise the monarch to exercise their power to prorogue Parliament. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.


Author(s):  
Vito Breda

En este artículo se analiza la devolution escocesa y la repercusión potencial en España del referéndum consultivo sobre la independencia de Escocia que tendrá lugar en 2014. Este referéndum podría ser percibido como uno de los muchos efectos del reciente resurgimiento nacionalista y su resultado es todavía objeto de especulaciones. Sin embargo, la posibilidad de asistir a la disolución de una de las más antiguas democracias occidentales como resultado de un referéndum es motivo de gran preocupación para los constitucionalistas en España. Se argumentará que el riesgo de un referéndum similar en España es bajo. Los procesos que han impulsado el referéndum sobre la independencia de Escocia son el resultado de un discurso pragmático que se produjo dentro de una historia constitucional específicamente británica. Por ejemplo, tanto las tradiciones constitucionales escocesa como británica consideran a sus parlamentos respectivos como los depositarios del poder constitucional soberano. El artículo se divide en tres partes, precedidas por una introducción y seguidas de una conclusión. La primera parte contiene una discusión metodológica preliminar que explica el elemento distintivo del Sistema de Derecho Público del Reino Unido. La segunda explica las características distintivas de la devolution escocesa. En particular, se aclaran los efectos de tener dos parlamentos (el escocés y el del Reino Unido) que se aferran a dos conceptos diferentes de soberanía legislativa. En la tercera sección se compara el proceso constitucional a seguir para la celebración del referéndum escocés y un pretendido referéndum sobre la secesión de una de las Comunidades Autónomas españolas.This article discusses the Scottish Devolution and the potential repercussion of the 2014 consultative referendum over Scottish independence in Spain. The 2014 referendum might be perceived as one of the many effects of the recent nationalist revival and its result is still a matter of speculations. However, the possibility of seeing the dissolution of one of the oldest western democracies as the result of a referendum is of great concern for constitutional lawyers in Spain. I would argue that a risk of an analogous referendum in Spain is low. The processes that were the proxy for the Scottish referendum over independence are the result of a pragmatic discourse that took place within a distinctively British constitutional history. For instance, both the Scottish and UK constitutional traditions consider their respective parliament the repository of sovereign constitutional power. The article is divided in three parts, preceded by an introduction and followed by a conclusion. The first part is a preliminary methodological discussion that explains the distinctive element of the UK Public Law System. The second explains the distinctive features of the Scottish Devolution. In particular, I will elucidate the effects of having two parliaments (the Scottish and the UK ) that hold on to two different concepts of legislative sovereignty. The third section compares the constitutional process required for the Scottish referendum and a putative referendum over a region secession in Spanish autonomous regions.


Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of Miller and Cherry) v Prime Minister and Advocate General for Scotland [2019] UKSC 41, UK Supreme Court. This case concerned whether the government could advise the Queen to prorogue Parliament for a protracted period of time (c. five weeks), when significant constitutional changes were being debated (the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union). The Supreme Court considered the legality of the prorogation on the basis of two constitutional principles—parliamentary sovereignty and government accountability to Parliament. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document