Reserved Matters, Legislative Purpose and the Referendum on Scottish Independence

28 Pages Posted: 5 Apr 2013

See all articles by Nicholas Aroney

Nicholas Aroney

The University of Queensland - T.C. Beirne School of Law; Emory University - Center for the Study of Law and Religion

Date Written: April 4, 2013

Abstract

In October 2012, the British and Scottish governments formed an historic agreement for the holding of referendum on Scottish independence from the United Kingdom, to be held in 2014. The Scottish Government had previously asserted that the Scottish Parliament had the power under the Scotland Act 1998 to enact an enabling law for such a referendum, but the British Government rejected this view, insisting that an Order in Council would have to be made under section 30 of the Scotland Act in order to empower the Scottish Parliament to do so. The agreement between the two governments presupposes that the British Government’s view is correct. Although the question concerning the competence of the Scottish Parliament thus seems to have been politically resolved, the underlying constitutional issue remains an important one. The two competing views about the power of the Scottish Parliament shaped attempts by the Scottish and British governments to determine the political agenda surrounding the referendum. If the anticipated referendum law passed by the Scottish Parliament were to deviate from the conditions of the s 30 Order, the constitutionality of the law could be challenged before the courts. Moreover, referendums are an appeal to the ‘sovereign’ will of the people. The location of the authority to call a referendum – especially one about Scottish independence – is accordingly one of the most potent indicators of the current state of British devolution and of the powers of the Scottish Parliament that might be imagined.

With this background in mind, this article examines the question whether the Scottish Parliament has the unilateral legislative competence to authorise a referendum on Scottish independence. To do this, the article undertakes a close reading of the Scotland Act, a critical consideration of the relevant British court decisions, and makes qualified use of the lessons that Canadian and Australian federalism jurisprudence can provide. It is shown that there are several analogies and dis-analogies between the British, Canadian and Australian systems which make comparison between the systems a complex but nonetheless potentially rewarding task. In the light of this comparison, it is concluded that, although the matter is not without doubt, it is most likely that a court would conclude that the Scottish Parliament does not have the unilateral competence to authorise an independence referendum apart from an appropriate s 30 Order or legislative amendment to the Scotland Act. It follows that the Scottish Government was probably wise to settle the agreement with the British Government on the basis that a s 30 Order would be necessary.

Keywords: Scottish Independence Referendum, Scotland Act, Devolution, United Kingdom Constitution

Suggested Citation

Aroney, Nicholas, Reserved Matters, Legislative Purpose and the Referendum on Scottish Independence (April 4, 2013). Public Law (2014, Forthcoming), University of Queensland TC Beirne School of Law Research Paper No. 13-04, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2244891

Nicholas Aroney (Contact Author)

The University of Queensland - T.C. Beirne School of Law ( email )

Brisbane 4072, Queensland
Australia
+61-(0)7-3365 3053 (Phone)

HOME PAGE: http://law.uq.edu.au/profile/1098/nicholas-aroney

Emory University - Center for the Study of Law and Religion ( email )

Atlanta, GA 30322
United States

HOME PAGE: http://cslr.law.emory.edu/people/senior-fellows/aroney-nicholas.html

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
315
Abstract Views
1,542
Rank
175,540
PlumX Metrics