I have written in other posts — here and here — about the constitutional implications of the proposed Scotland Bill arising from the Report of the Smith Commission. In advance of giving oral evidence on this matter to the House of Lords Constitution Committee and the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, I have made the following written submission to them.

The paper argues that clauses 1 and 2 of the proposed Scotland Bill are likely to be of limited, if any, legal effect; that the drafters of these provisions could, if they had wished, have attempted to implement the relevant provisions of Smith Commission’s report more fulsomely; that, however, the legal enforceability of more ambitious provisions would at the very least be open to question; and that the real significance of clauses 1 and 2 is likely to be political and symbolic rather than legal.

The paper can be downloaded as a PDF document via this link

Posted by Mark Elliott

Mark Elliott is Professor of Public Law at the University of Cambridge, a Fellow of St Catharine's College, Cambridge, and Legal Adviser to the House of Lords Constitution Committee. All views on this blog are expressed in a purely personal capacity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s