By Mark Elliott and Nicholas Kilford In the Continuity Bill Reference, the Supreme Court advanced a striking analysis of the implications for devolution of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty — or, more specifically, of the provision in the Scotland Act 1998 that had hitherto been understood merely to affirm that doctrine. The provision in question… Continue reading Devolution in the Supreme Court: Legislative supremacy, Parliament’s ‘unqualified’ power, and ‘modifying’ the Scotland Act
Tag: devolution
Constitutional Law: The Big Picture IV — The Territorial Constitution
This is the fourth in a series of posts and accompanying videos on the UK constitution. In earlier pieces in this series, I introduced it and went on to consider judicial review and human rights. The overall aim of this set of posts and videos is to explore the nature of the UK constitution through… Continue reading Constitutional Law: The Big Picture IV — The Territorial Constitution
Video: Cambridge Centre for Public Law event on the Scottish Continuity Bill case
https://youtu.be/3G00xv8HfWY I have written before about the Supreme Court’s judgment, given in December 2018, in the ‘Scottish Continuity Bill case’ [2018] UKSC 64. The Continuity Bill was adopted by the Scottish Parliament against the background of serious disagreement between the Scottish and UK Governments concerning the UK Parliament’s European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (on which see this post). That disagreement… Continue reading Video: Cambridge Centre for Public Law event on the Scottish Continuity Bill case
The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Scottish Continuity Bill case
Earlier this week, the UK Supreme Court gave judgment in relation to the “Scottish Continuity Bill” [2018] UKSC 64. The matter reached the Court through a reference made under section 33(1) of the Scotland Act 1998, according to which the Court has jurisdiction to rule on “the question of whether a [Scottish] Bill or any… Continue reading The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Scottish Continuity Bill case
Britain’s constitution is buckling under the weight of Brexit
Brexit is placing the UK constitution under unprecedented strain. This article, originally published online by Prospect magazine, takes stock of where Brexit currently stands in domestic-constitutional terms
The UK Constitution After Miller: Brexit and Beyond
Mark Elliott, Jack Williams and Alison L Young introduce The UK Constitution After Miller: Brexit and Beyond — an edited collection published by Hart Publishing which explores the constitutional implications and legacy of the UK Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in the Miller case
Public Law Update #4: Brexit, the separation of powers and devolution
The third edition of Public Law was published by Oxford University Press in May 2017. This is the last in a series of posts by the authors, Mark Elliott and Robert Thomas, taking the 2017 election and Brexit as reference points and updating readers on recent developments in the field. These posts are based on updates first published by Oxford University Press in the book's Online Resource Centre.
Public Law Update #2: The wider constitutional implications of the 2017 general election
The third edition of Public Law was published by Oxford University Press in May 2017. This is the second in a series of posts by the authors, Mark Elliott and Robert Thomas, taking the 2017 election and Brexit as reference points and updating readers on recent developments in the field. These posts are based on updates first published by Oxford University Press in the book's Online Resource Centre.
House of Lords Constitution Committee issues interim report on EU (Withdrawal) Bill
In an interim report on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, the House of Lords Constitution Committee has said that the “political, legal and constitutional significance of the Bill is unparalleled”. In this post, Mark Elliott and Stephen Tierney examine the main points made in the report and comment on the key issues raised by it.
A “blatant power grab”? The Scottish Government on the EU (Withdrawal) Bill
The Scottish Government has issued a statement saying that the EU (Withdrawal) Bill is a "blatant power grab" to which the Scottish Parliament is unlikely to consent. Is the Scottish Government right to characterise the Bill thus? And what will happen if consent to it is not forthcoming?
Public Law for Everyone 