Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

A British Common Law? Public Law after the 1707 Union between England and Scotland

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Chapter

21 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

In the 1953 Scottish case of MacCormick v. Lord Advocate, John MacCormick and Ian Hamilton sought to challenge the publication of a proclamation pursuant to the Royal Titles Act 1953 designating the new Queen’s royal title as ‘Elizabeth the Second of the United Kingdom of Great Britain’. Although there had previously been a Queen Elizabeth, she had reigned only in England, never in Scotland, and crucially before the creation of the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707 in accordance with the Treaty of Union. According to MacCormick and Hamilton, therefore, the adoption of the numerals ‘the Second’ was contrary to Article I of the Treaty of Union which, being a fundamental condition of the Treaty, was ultra vires of the powers of the Westminster Parliament. The case was dismissed by both the Outer House and Inner House of the Court of Session, albeit on different grounds, with the Lord President (Lord Cooper) in the latter doing so in part on the basis that the Court of Session lacked the competence necessary to determine whether or not any governmental acts conform with the terms of the Treaty of Union.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationLaw and Constitutional Change
EditorsDavid Capper, Conor McCormick, Norma Dawson
Place of PublicationCambridge, UK
Chapter6
Pages98-121
Number of pages23
ISBN (Electronic)9781009797733
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 26 Sept 2025

Keywords

  • English law
  • Acts of Union
  • Scots law
  • constitutional law
  • Article XVIII

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A British Common Law? Public Law after the 1707 Union between England and Scotland'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this