Brexit and Scotland

Aileen McHarg, James Mitchell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In the 2016 Brexit referendum, Scotland voted decisively to Remain in the EU, while a UK-wide majority voted to Leave. This article discusses responses to the constitutional significance of a territorially-divided result, both prior to, and following, the referendum, including in litigation over the ‘constitutional requirements’ necessary to trigger the UK’s withdrawal from the EU under Article 50 TEU (Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union). It considers what these debates reveal about the uncertain and contested nature of the UK’s territorial constitution, focusing on issues of constitutional security for devolved institutions and competences, and constitutional voice for the devolved territories in handling issues of intertwined competence. It argues that the Brexit episode reveals major weaknesses in the dominant reliance on political mechanisms to give recognition to the constitutional significance of devolution, which do not adequately displace continued legal adherence to the assumptions of a unitary constitution.

LanguageEnglish
Number of pages14
JournalBritish Journal of Politics and International Relations
Early online date4 Jun 2017
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 4 Jun 2017

Fingerprint

referendum
constitution
EU
devolution
withdrawal
decentralization
European Union
litigation

Keywords

  • Brexit
  • territorial constitution
  • Scotland
  • devolved government
  • constitutional law

Cite this

@article{9091bd0be55f429480e0ba6973a91baf,
title = "Brexit and Scotland",
abstract = "In the 2016 Brexit referendum, Scotland voted decisively to Remain in the EU, while a UK-wide majority voted to Leave. This article discusses responses to the constitutional significance of a territorially-divided result, both prior to, and following, the referendum, including in litigation over the ‘constitutional requirements’ necessary to trigger the UK’s withdrawal from the EU under Article 50 TEU (Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union). It considers what these debates reveal about the uncertain and contested nature of the UK’s territorial constitution, focusing on issues of constitutional security for devolved institutions and competences, and constitutional voice for the devolved territories in handling issues of intertwined competence. It argues that the Brexit episode reveals major weaknesses in the dominant reliance on political mechanisms to give recognition to the constitutional significance of devolution, which do not adequately displace continued legal adherence to the assumptions of a unitary constitution.",
keywords = "Brexit, territorial constitution, Scotland, devolved government, constitutional law",
author = "Aileen McHarg and James Mitchell",
year = "2017",
month = "6",
day = "4",
doi = "10.1177/1369148117711674",
language = "English",
journal = "British Journal of Politics and International Relations",
issn = "1369-1481",

}

Brexit and Scotland. / McHarg, Aileen; Mitchell, James.

In: British Journal of Politics and International Relations , 04.06.2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Brexit and Scotland

AU - McHarg, Aileen

AU - Mitchell, James

PY - 2017/6/4

Y1 - 2017/6/4

N2 - In the 2016 Brexit referendum, Scotland voted decisively to Remain in the EU, while a UK-wide majority voted to Leave. This article discusses responses to the constitutional significance of a territorially-divided result, both prior to, and following, the referendum, including in litigation over the ‘constitutional requirements’ necessary to trigger the UK’s withdrawal from the EU under Article 50 TEU (Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union). It considers what these debates reveal about the uncertain and contested nature of the UK’s territorial constitution, focusing on issues of constitutional security for devolved institutions and competences, and constitutional voice for the devolved territories in handling issues of intertwined competence. It argues that the Brexit episode reveals major weaknesses in the dominant reliance on political mechanisms to give recognition to the constitutional significance of devolution, which do not adequately displace continued legal adherence to the assumptions of a unitary constitution.

AB - In the 2016 Brexit referendum, Scotland voted decisively to Remain in the EU, while a UK-wide majority voted to Leave. This article discusses responses to the constitutional significance of a territorially-divided result, both prior to, and following, the referendum, including in litigation over the ‘constitutional requirements’ necessary to trigger the UK’s withdrawal from the EU under Article 50 TEU (Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union). It considers what these debates reveal about the uncertain and contested nature of the UK’s territorial constitution, focusing on issues of constitutional security for devolved institutions and competences, and constitutional voice for the devolved territories in handling issues of intertwined competence. It argues that the Brexit episode reveals major weaknesses in the dominant reliance on political mechanisms to give recognition to the constitutional significance of devolution, which do not adequately displace continued legal adherence to the assumptions of a unitary constitution.

KW - Brexit

KW - territorial constitution

KW - Scotland

KW - devolved government

KW - constitutional law

UR - http://journals.sagepub.com/loi/bpia

U2 - 10.1177/1369148117711674

DO - 10.1177/1369148117711674

M3 - Article

JO - British Journal of Politics and International Relations

T2 - British Journal of Politics and International Relations

JF - British Journal of Politics and International Relations

SN - 1369-1481

ER -