The Supreme Court and devolution: the Scottish Continuity Bill reference

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The Scottish Continuity Bill reference – the first legislative competence dispute between the UK and Scottish Governments to reach the courts – took place against the background of a protracted political battle over what is now the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (“the Withdrawal Act”). That Act regulates the domestic consequences of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union (“Brexit”) by: providing for the continuity of EU law post-Brexit (“retained EU law”); empowering ministers to adjust the statute book to deal with deficiencies arising from Brexit; and adjusting the scope of devolved competences in light of the “repatriation” of decision-making powers from the EU.

Unhappy with the way in which the then Withdrawal Bill affected devolved competences, the Scottish Parliament withheld its legislative consent, as was required under the Sewel Convention. On the assumption that this would mean that the Withdrawal Bill would be amended so as not to apply to devolved matters in Scotland, the Scottish Parliament intended to fill the resulting lacuna by enacting its own Brexit legislation. The UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill (the “Scottish Continuity Bill”) thus provided for EU law to remain in effect in relation to devolved matters after exit day (“retained (devolved) EU law”), and gave the Scottish Ministers powers to adjust the devolved statute book in the light of Brexit. In so doing, it largely mirrored the provisions of the Withdrawal Bill, but with some important differences. In the event, the Withdrawal Bill was not amended, and – in another constitutional first – it was applied to devolved matters in Scotland despite Holyrood’s refusal of consent.
LanguageEnglish
JournalJuridical Review
Publication statusAccepted/In press - 8 Apr 2019

Fingerprint

Scotland
European Union
Clergy
withdrawal
Mental Competency
decentralization
Supreme Court
continuity
European Law
bill
Dissent and Disputes
Legislation
Decision Making
act
statute
parliament
minister
remigration
EU
legislation

Keywords

  • devolution
  • Supreme Court
  • Scotland

Cite this

@article{46bf408f1625429b9b94b80f2ce62829,
title = "The Supreme Court and devolution: the Scottish Continuity Bill reference",
abstract = "The Scottish Continuity Bill reference – the first legislative competence dispute between the UK and Scottish Governments to reach the courts – took place against the background of a protracted political battle over what is now the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (“the Withdrawal Act”). That Act regulates the domestic consequences of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union (“Brexit”) by: providing for the continuity of EU law post-Brexit (“retained EU law”); empowering ministers to adjust the statute book to deal with deficiencies arising from Brexit; and adjusting the scope of devolved competences in light of the “repatriation” of decision-making powers from the EU. Unhappy with the way in which the then Withdrawal Bill affected devolved competences, the Scottish Parliament withheld its legislative consent, as was required under the Sewel Convention. On the assumption that this would mean that the Withdrawal Bill would be amended so as not to apply to devolved matters in Scotland, the Scottish Parliament intended to fill the resulting lacuna by enacting its own Brexit legislation. The UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill (the “Scottish Continuity Bill”) thus provided for EU law to remain in effect in relation to devolved matters after exit day (“retained (devolved) EU law”), and gave the Scottish Ministers powers to adjust the devolved statute book in the light of Brexit. In so doing, it largely mirrored the provisions of the Withdrawal Bill, but with some important differences. In the event, the Withdrawal Bill was not amended, and – in another constitutional first – it was applied to devolved matters in Scotland despite Holyrood’s refusal of consent.",
keywords = "devolution, Supreme Court, Scotland",
author = "Christopher McCorkindale and Aileen McHarg",
year = "2019",
month = "4",
day = "8",
language = "English",
journal = "Juridical Review",
issn = "0022-6785",

}

The Supreme Court and devolution : the Scottish Continuity Bill reference. / McCorkindale, Christopher; McHarg, Aileen.

In: Juridical Review, 08.04.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Supreme Court and devolution

T2 - Juridical Review

AU - McCorkindale, Christopher

AU - McHarg, Aileen

PY - 2019/4/8

Y1 - 2019/4/8

N2 - The Scottish Continuity Bill reference – the first legislative competence dispute between the UK and Scottish Governments to reach the courts – took place against the background of a protracted political battle over what is now the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (“the Withdrawal Act”). That Act regulates the domestic consequences of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union (“Brexit”) by: providing for the continuity of EU law post-Brexit (“retained EU law”); empowering ministers to adjust the statute book to deal with deficiencies arising from Brexit; and adjusting the scope of devolved competences in light of the “repatriation” of decision-making powers from the EU. Unhappy with the way in which the then Withdrawal Bill affected devolved competences, the Scottish Parliament withheld its legislative consent, as was required under the Sewel Convention. On the assumption that this would mean that the Withdrawal Bill would be amended so as not to apply to devolved matters in Scotland, the Scottish Parliament intended to fill the resulting lacuna by enacting its own Brexit legislation. The UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill (the “Scottish Continuity Bill”) thus provided for EU law to remain in effect in relation to devolved matters after exit day (“retained (devolved) EU law”), and gave the Scottish Ministers powers to adjust the devolved statute book in the light of Brexit. In so doing, it largely mirrored the provisions of the Withdrawal Bill, but with some important differences. In the event, the Withdrawal Bill was not amended, and – in another constitutional first – it was applied to devolved matters in Scotland despite Holyrood’s refusal of consent.

AB - The Scottish Continuity Bill reference – the first legislative competence dispute between the UK and Scottish Governments to reach the courts – took place against the background of a protracted political battle over what is now the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (“the Withdrawal Act”). That Act regulates the domestic consequences of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union (“Brexit”) by: providing for the continuity of EU law post-Brexit (“retained EU law”); empowering ministers to adjust the statute book to deal with deficiencies arising from Brexit; and adjusting the scope of devolved competences in light of the “repatriation” of decision-making powers from the EU. Unhappy with the way in which the then Withdrawal Bill affected devolved competences, the Scottish Parliament withheld its legislative consent, as was required under the Sewel Convention. On the assumption that this would mean that the Withdrawal Bill would be amended so as not to apply to devolved matters in Scotland, the Scottish Parliament intended to fill the resulting lacuna by enacting its own Brexit legislation. The UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill (the “Scottish Continuity Bill”) thus provided for EU law to remain in effect in relation to devolved matters after exit day (“retained (devolved) EU law”), and gave the Scottish Ministers powers to adjust the devolved statute book in the light of Brexit. In so doing, it largely mirrored the provisions of the Withdrawal Bill, but with some important differences. In the event, the Withdrawal Bill was not amended, and – in another constitutional first – it was applied to devolved matters in Scotland despite Holyrood’s refusal of consent.

KW - devolution

KW - Supreme Court

KW - Scotland

M3 - Article

JO - Juridical Review

JF - Juridical Review

SN - 0022-6785

ER -