I published a long piece earlier today about the Scottish independence vote — and, in particular, its constitutional implications for the UK as a whole. I have also written a much shorter article for The Conversation on the same topic; it’s available here.
After a very long — and at times electrifying — campaign, a modest but decisive majority of those who participated in the referendum on Scottish independence have voted “no”. In one sense, this is the end of the process — even if, bearing in mind the main UK parties’ still-to-be-fulfilled promises about further devolution, it
Opinion polls suggesting that the pro-independence campaign in Scotland may have taken a narrow lead have had an electrifying effect, causing the mainstream UK media and political establishment — both of which have been curiously disengaged from the debate so far — to sit up and take notice. The point of this post is not to make the
The House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee has published its report on The Constitutional Role of the Judiciary if there were a Codified Constitution (HC 802, 2013-14) (on which see also Andrew Le Sueur’s post on the UK Constitutional Law Blog). Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Committee does not come to any firm views, given
This is a follow-up to a piece I wrote last week in response to remarks by the First Minister of Wales about the possible adoption of a federal constitution for the UK. This post was written for the ConstitutionUK Blog, where it was first published. It is reposted here with permission. Whether the United Kingdom
The Boxing Day edition of The Independent carried a fascinating interview with Carwyn Jones, the First Minister of Wales. In it, he said: Whatever happens after the referendum in Scotland there will need to be change because the UK’s constitution has come to the end of its ability to deal with devolution, to imbed devolution
Salvesen v Riddell  UKSC 22 is interesting and significant for all sorts of reasons, not least because the UK Supreme Court ruled part of an Act of the Scottish Parliament to be unlawful—that is, outside Holyrood’s competence—on the ground that it conflicted with the European Convention on Human Rights. The facts of the case
Lord Irvine, who as the first Lord Chancellor in the Blair Government was instrumental in many of its constitutional reform projects, is reported once to have said that “the best thing to do about the West Lothian question is to stop asking it”. The Coalition Government, however, charged the McKay Commission with addressing precisely that