Legislative quality and the Scottish Parliament

Aileen McHarg

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Writing in The Scotsman in July 2016, Alistair Bonnington made the startling claim that the Scottish Parliament produces “the lowest quality legislation in Europe”.1 Such hyperbole is easy to dismiss; given the linguistic challenges, and the varying roles and styles of legislation in different legal systems, how would one even begin to make such a comparative assessment? Nevertheless, complaints about the rigour of Holyrood's legislative process and the quality of its legislative output, usually by comparison with Westminster, have dogged the Parliament since its earliest days, though criticisms are more often based on assertion and anecdote than detailed analysis. This is perhaps unsurprising given that measuring the quality of legislation and the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny are more complex tasks than might be thought.2 This note aims to shed some light on the debate by considering the different things we might mean when talking about “good” or “bad” legislation and by identifying what we know – and, more importantly, what we do not know – about Holyrood's performance measured against these criteria.
LanguageEnglish
Pages109-115
Number of pages7
JournalEdinburgh Law Review
Volume21
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 30 Jan 2017

Fingerprint

parliament
legislation
Briton
legal system
complaint
criticism
linguistics
performance

Keywords

  • legislative quality
  • scottish parliament
  • democratic legitimacy
  • constitutional law
  • legislative process

Cite this

McHarg, Aileen. / Legislative quality and the Scottish Parliament. In: Edinburgh Law Review. 2017 ; Vol. 21, No. 1. pp. 109-115.
@article{d2b20e403aff462fa9fd18066da105b4,
title = "Legislative quality and the Scottish Parliament",
abstract = "Writing in The Scotsman in July 2016, Alistair Bonnington made the startling claim that the Scottish Parliament produces “the lowest quality legislation in Europe”.1 Such hyperbole is easy to dismiss; given the linguistic challenges, and the varying roles and styles of legislation in different legal systems, how would one even begin to make such a comparative assessment? Nevertheless, complaints about the rigour of Holyrood's legislative process and the quality of its legislative output, usually by comparison with Westminster, have dogged the Parliament since its earliest days, though criticisms are more often based on assertion and anecdote than detailed analysis. This is perhaps unsurprising given that measuring the quality of legislation and the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny are more complex tasks than might be thought.2 This note aims to shed some light on the debate by considering the different things we might mean when talking about “good” or “bad” legislation and by identifying what we know – and, more importantly, what we do not know – about Holyrood's performance measured against these criteria.",
keywords = "legislative quality, scottish parliament, democratic legitimacy, constitutional law, legislative process",
author = "Aileen McHarg",
note = "This is an Accepted Manuscript]of an article published by Edinburgh University Press in Edinburgh Law Review. The Version of Record is available online at: https://doi.org/10.3366/elr.2017.0394.",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "30",
doi = "10.3366/elr.2017.0394",
language = "English",
volume = "21",
pages = "109--115",
journal = "Edinburgh Law Review",
issn = "1364-9809",
publisher = "Edinburgh University Press",
number = "1",

}

Legislative quality and the Scottish Parliament. / McHarg, Aileen.

In: Edinburgh Law Review, Vol. 21, No. 1, 30.01.2017, p. 109-115.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Legislative quality and the Scottish Parliament

AU - McHarg, Aileen

N1 - This is an Accepted Manuscript]of an article published by Edinburgh University Press in Edinburgh Law Review. The Version of Record is available online at: https://doi.org/10.3366/elr.2017.0394.

PY - 2017/1/30

Y1 - 2017/1/30

N2 - Writing in The Scotsman in July 2016, Alistair Bonnington made the startling claim that the Scottish Parliament produces “the lowest quality legislation in Europe”.1 Such hyperbole is easy to dismiss; given the linguistic challenges, and the varying roles and styles of legislation in different legal systems, how would one even begin to make such a comparative assessment? Nevertheless, complaints about the rigour of Holyrood's legislative process and the quality of its legislative output, usually by comparison with Westminster, have dogged the Parliament since its earliest days, though criticisms are more often based on assertion and anecdote than detailed analysis. This is perhaps unsurprising given that measuring the quality of legislation and the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny are more complex tasks than might be thought.2 This note aims to shed some light on the debate by considering the different things we might mean when talking about “good” or “bad” legislation and by identifying what we know – and, more importantly, what we do not know – about Holyrood's performance measured against these criteria.

AB - Writing in The Scotsman in July 2016, Alistair Bonnington made the startling claim that the Scottish Parliament produces “the lowest quality legislation in Europe”.1 Such hyperbole is easy to dismiss; given the linguistic challenges, and the varying roles and styles of legislation in different legal systems, how would one even begin to make such a comparative assessment? Nevertheless, complaints about the rigour of Holyrood's legislative process and the quality of its legislative output, usually by comparison with Westminster, have dogged the Parliament since its earliest days, though criticisms are more often based on assertion and anecdote than detailed analysis. This is perhaps unsurprising given that measuring the quality of legislation and the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny are more complex tasks than might be thought.2 This note aims to shed some light on the debate by considering the different things we might mean when talking about “good” or “bad” legislation and by identifying what we know – and, more importantly, what we do not know – about Holyrood's performance measured against these criteria.

KW - legislative quality

KW - scottish parliament

KW - democratic legitimacy

KW - constitutional law

KW - legislative process

UR - http://www.euppublishing.com/loi/elr

U2 - 10.3366/elr.2017.0394

DO - 10.3366/elr.2017.0394

M3 - Article

VL - 21

SP - 109

EP - 115

JO - Edinburgh Law Review

T2 - Edinburgh Law Review

JF - Edinburgh Law Review

SN - 1364-9809

IS - 1

ER -