DOCSLIB.ORG

Climate Change Bill

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Climate Change Bill SCOTLAND BILL AMENDMENT TO BE MOVED IN COMMITTEE Clause 1, page 1, line 7 leave out “A” and insert “The” Effect Paving amendment. 1 SCOTLAND BILL AMENDMENT TO BE MOVED IN COMMITTEE Clause 1, page 1, line 7 Leave out “recognised as” Effect This amendment deletes the words “recognised as” from Clause 1. Reason The Smith Commission reported on 27 November 2014. Pillar 1 of the Smith Agreement relates to providing a “durable but responsive constitutional settlement for the governance of Scotland”. Paragraph 21 of the report concerns the permanence of the Scottish Parliament and provides that “UK legislation will state that the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government are permanent institutions”. Clause 1(1) inserts a new subsection (1A) into Section 1 of the Scotland Act 1998. It states that “A Scottish Parliament is recognised as a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements”. Similar phraseology is used for the purposes of amending Section 44 of the Scotland Act 1998 which makes provision for the Scottish Government. That Section, which was amended by the Scotland Act 2012 will now have a new sub-section 1 which declares that “there shall be a Scottish Government and that a Scottish Government is recognised as a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements…” The clause does not literally implement the terms of Paragraph 21 of the Smith Report. The use of the phrase “recognised as permanent” has a different nuance from a statement that “the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government are permanent institutions”. This was raised by the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee in its interim report on the Smith Commission (SP paper 720), Paragraph 48 and the amendment reflects the Committee’s recommendation. 2 SCOTLAND BILL AMENDMENT TO BE MOVED IN COMMITTEE Clause 1, page 1, line 12 Leave out “recognised as “ Effect Consequential amendment. 3 SCOTLAND BILL AMENDMENT TO BE MOVED IN COMMITTEE Clause 2, page 2, line 3 Leave out “normally” Effect This amendment deletes the word normally from Section 28(8) of the Scotland Act 1998 inserted by Clause 2. Reason The Sewel Convention was declared in the House of Lords during the passage of the Scotland Bill 1998 on 21 July 1998, during a debate on an amendment by Lord Mackay of Drumadoon concerning Clause 27(7) – now Section 28(7). Clause 2 inserts a new sub-section 28(8) into the Scotland Act 1998 s.28 which seeks to recognise that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. In one sense, this does place the Sewel Convention on a statutory footing as required by Paragraph 22 of the Smith Report. The clause quotes Lord Sewel’s statement at Column 791 where he said that “we would expect a Convention to be established that Westminster would not normally legislate, with regard to devolved matters in Scotland, without the consent of the Scottish Parliament”. The direct quote from Lord Sewel including the word “normally” does not go far enough to ensure that the UK Parliament will not legislate on devolved or related issues without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. Removing “normally” is a step towards making the provision more robust. 4 SCOTLAND BILL AMENDMENT TO BE MOVED IN COMMITTEE Clause 2, page 2, line 3 After legislate insert “(a)” Effect Paving amendment. 5 SCOTLAND BILL AMENDMENT TO BE MOVED IN COMMITTEE Clause 2, page 2, line 3 After “matters” insert “and (b) to alter the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or the executive competence of the Scottish Government” Effect This amendment provides for the consent of the Scottish Parliament to be sought in the event of any alteration to the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or the executive competence of the Scottish Government. Reason The Sewel Convention applies when UK legislation makes provision specifically designed for a devolved purpose. The Convention has been agreed in Memoranda of Understanding and by the House of Commons Procedure Committee and its practical usage is explained in Devolution Guidance Note Number 10 (DGN10). DGN10 does not apply to incidental or consequential provisions in relation to a reserved matter. It does apply to draft bills and private members’ bills. It will also apparently continue to apply to any statutory formulation of the Convention. It is significant that DGN10 also requires the consent of the Scottish Parliament in respect of provisions of a Bill before the UK Parliament which would alter the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament or the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers (see DGN 10 at paragraphs 4(iii) and 9). It would seem, however, that Clause 2 would not apply to this latter category of provision. This amendment remedies that deficiency. 6 SCOTLAND BILL AMENDMENT TO BE MOVED IN COMMITTEE Clause 10, page 11, line 27 Add at end – "(a) the period between general elections specified in section 2(2)" Effect This amendment adds the term of a parliament to the list of protected subject matters to which a super-majority will apply. Reason Section 2(2) of the Scotland Act 1998 provides that the general election for the Scottish Parliament will be at 4 yearly intervals. This amendment includes the term of the Parliament in the protected subject matters to which the super-majority applies. This will insulate parliamentary terms from being altered to the political advantage of any Scottish Government. 7 SCOTLAND BILL AMENDMENT TO BE MOVED IN COMMITTEE Clause 10, page 11, line 30 Add at end – "(c) the alteration of boundaries of constituencies, regions, or any equivalent electoral area" Effect This amendment includes in the list of protected subject- matters the capacity to change boundaries. Reason This amendment amends section 10(5) by inserting a new paragraph into the new subsection (5) to include constituency boundary changes in the list of protected subject- matters which require a super-majority to change. This will insulate constituencies from being altered for political advantage. 8 SCOTLAND BILL AMENDMENT TO BE MOVED IN COMMITTEE Clause 31, page 30, line 34 Leave out "may" and insert "must" Effect This amendment removes the Treasury's discretion about making a scheme to transfer the Scottish Crown Estate Commissioner functions to Scottish Ministers. Reason The Smith Commission report confirmed agreement to transfer responsibility for the management of the Crown Estate to the Scottish Parliament. Clause 31 provides that a scheme may be made by the Treasury to transfer the Crown Estate to Scottish Ministers. There are two observations to be made: firstly the Treasury have discretion to make the transfer scheme and secondly that the transferee is the Scottish Ministers rather than the Scottish Parliament as envisaged by the Smith Commission report. On the first point the amendment removes discretion to make the scheme from the Treasury and makes it mandatory for the scheme to be made. This will bring the clause closer to conformity with the Smith Commission report. On the second point the Government should explain why the transferee in the bill is the Scottish Ministers rather than the Scottish Parliament. Clause 31 (5)(d) refers to the Scottish Parliament in the context of assuming the role of the UK Parliament under the Crown Estate Act 1961 but that consists of oversight and accountability roles rather than active management of the Crown Estate. 9 SCOTLAND BILL AMENDMENT TO BE MOVED IN COMMITTEE Clause 31, page 32, line 25 Leave out "C" and insert "A" Effect This amendment changes the type of procedure applicable to the statutory instrument which will establish the transfer scheme. Reason Type C procedure for the approval of statutory instruments under the Scotland Act 1998 requires the approval of both Houses of Parliament. Although the scheme will require the consent of Scottish Ministers -- new section 90B(13), the Scottish Parliament is not required to approve the scheme. Type A procedure requires the statutory instrument containing the scheme to obtain the approval of both Houses of Parliament and the Scottish Parliament. This is more reflective of the Smith Commission report and accordingly the amendment is necessary. 10 SCOTLAND BILL AMENDMENT TO BE MOVED IN COMMITTEE Clause 31, page 32, line 31 Leave out "then, instead of the type C procedure" Effect Paving amendment 11 SCOTLAND BILL AMENDMENT TO BE MOVED IN COMMITTEE Clause 31, page 32, line 31 Leave out "I" and insert "A" Effect This amendment changes the procedure for approval of a variation of the Scheme from Type I to Type A. Reason Clause 31(4) provides that for certain purposes Type I procedure should be used for amendments to the scheme. Type I procedure designates that a statutory instrument containing legislation is subject to annulment by either House of Parliament. Therefore changes to the scheme would not be subject to scrutiny by the Scottish Parliament. This amendment ensures that the Scottish Parliament would have a role in the passing of the legislation. 12 SCOTLAND BILL AMENDMENT TO BE MOVED IN COMMITTEE Clause 33, page 35, line 18 Leave out lines 18 and 19 Effect This amendment deletes employment tribunals or the employment appeal tribunal from the reservation provisions in new Paragraph 2A to Part 3 of Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act. Reason We welcome the inclusion of this clause which is directed at tribunals dealing with reserved matters in Scotland. We however have reservations about the drafting of Clause 33, believing it does not give effect to Paragraphs 63 and 64 of the Smith Commission Report. We believe that Clause 33 sets limitations on the transfer of responsibility for management of transferred tribunals.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • National Assembly for Wales Finance Committee – Consultation on Future Funding
    Y Pwyllgor Cyllid / Finance Committee Fin(4)-12-15 P2 National Assembly for Wales Finance Committee – Consultation on Future Funding A Submission by: The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy June 2015 1 CIPFA, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, is the professional body for people in public finance. CIPFA shows the way in public finance globally, standing up for sound public financial management and good governance around the world as the leading commentator on managing and accounting for public money. Further information about CIPFA can be obtained at www.cipfa.org Any questions arising from this submission should be directed to: Don Peebles Alan Bermingham Head of CIPFA Scotland Policy and Technical Manager CIPFA in Scotland (UK Devolved Regions and Ireland) Level 3 Suite D 3rd Floor, Lesley Exchange 2 160 Dundee Street 22 East Bridge Street Edinburgh Belfast EH11 1DQ BT1 3NR Tel: +44 (0)131 221 8653 Tel: +44 (0)2890 266 1653 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] 2 1. Executive Summary 1.1 Reflecting on the focus of the Committees inquiry into future funding considerations, this submission will concentrate on the following areas: The key weaknesses and limitations (see appendix 1) in the current Welsh funding settlement and how these should be addressed What type of financial information is needed by the Welsh Government to provide appropriate support for and scrutiny of future funding arrangements The relevance of the Barnett Formula funding arrangements and; The principles that should be adopted to underpin further devolution of fiscal powers to Wales 1.2 CIPFA would make the following conclusions and recommendations to the Committee for consideration in its inquiry.
    [Show full text]
  • CMA's Response to the Smith Commission
    The Competition and Market Authority’s response to the Smith Commission 31 October 2014 CMA36 © Crown copyright 2014 You may reuse this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government- licence/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected]. Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................ 3 Summary .................................................................................................................... 4 Background ................................................................................................................ 5 Markets ...................................................................................................................... 7 Cross-border effects: businesses ............................................................................. 10 Cross-border effects: consumers ............................................................................. 11 Competition regime .................................................................................................. 13 Consumer regime ..................................................................................................... 18 Transition ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Scotland and the UK Constitution
    Scotland and the UK Constitution The 1998 devolution acts brought about the most significant change in the constitution of the United Kingdom since at least the passage of the 1972 European Communities Act. Under those statutes devolved legislatures and administrations were created in Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland. The documents below have been selected to give an overview of the constitutional settlement established by the devolution acts and by the Courts. Scotland has been chosen as a case study for this examination, both because the Scottish Parliament has been granted the most extensive range of powers and legislative competences of the three devolved areas, but also because the ongoing debate on Scottish independence means that the powers and competencies of the Scottish Parliament are very much live questions. The devolution of certain legislative and political powers to Scotland was effected by the Scotland Act 1998. That statute, enacted by the Westminster Parliament, creates the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive (now the “Scottish Government”), and establishes the limits on the Parliament’s legislative competence. Schedule 5 of the Act, interpolated by Section 30(1), lists those powers which are reserved to the Westminster Parliament, and delegates all other matters to the devolved organs. Thus, while constitutional matters, foreign affairs, and national defence are explicitly reserved to Westminster, all matters not listed— including the education system, the health service, the legal system, environmental
    [Show full text]
  • European and External Relations
    14 May 2015 Draft Scotland Bill “falls short” in some “critical areas”- Devolution Committee The previous UK Government’s draft legislative clauses for the new Scotland Bill do not meet the “spirit or substance” of the Smith Commission’s recommendations on welfare and benefits, and require extensive redrafting in other key areas, a Scottish Parliamentary Committee said today. The Devolution (Further Powers) Committee today published its unanimous interim report into the draft legislation produced by the former UK Government in the light of the recommendations of The Smith Commission. Now that a new Scottish Secretary is in place, the Committee is urging the new UK Government to take the opportunity to reflect upon the concerns highlighted during its extensive evidence gathering process. Committee Convener Bruce Crawford MSP said: “All political parties involved in the Smith Commission agreed to take forward its recommendations as quickly as possible while ensuring that the draft legislation met the spirit and substance of those recommendations. “In the short period of time the Committee had to consider the legislation prior to the dissolution of the UK Parliament, we decided to focus our attention on key issues such as taxation and borrowing, welfare and benefits and The Crown Estate. “The Committee believes that the current proposals do not yet meet the challenge of fully translating the political agreement reached in the Smith Commission into legislation. For example, as we heard in our evidence taking, there is no power for the Scottish Parliament to top up reserved benefits despite that being one of the powers highlighted at the time of publication.
    [Show full text]
  • The Barnett Formula
    BRIEFING PAPER Number 7386, 28 May 2021 By Matthew Keep The Barnett formula Inside: 1. The formula 2. Issues 3. Recent fiscal devolution www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary Number 7386, 28 May 2021 2 Contents Summary 3 1. The formula 4 1.1 Introduction 4 1.2 How does the formula work? 5 Comparability percentage 5 Population proportions 6 Examples 7 1.3 UK Government spending announced outside of a spending review 7 1.4 A block grant floor for Wales 8 1.5 A non-statutory formula 9 1.6 Government transparency 9 1.7 Formula bypass 10 1.8 Origins 10 2. Issues 11 2.1 A needs-based formula 11 2.2 Equity 12 2.3 Barnett squeeze 13 3. Recent fiscal devolution 16 3.1 Block grant adjustment 16 Indexing BGAs in Scotland 17 Indexing BGAs in Wales 18 BGA in Northern Ireland 18 Further information about fiscal devolution 20 3.2 Recent legislation and Barnett 21 Appendix 1. Calculating the Home Office’s comparability percentage 24 Appendix 2. Calculating Scotland’s Barnett consequentials for 2018/19 25 Cover page image copyright: DIL_1336 by Switchology. Licensed under CC BY 2.0 / image cropped. 3 The Barnett formula Summary The devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland Details of how the receive grants from the UK Government that fund most of their devolved spending. The largest such grant is the ‘block grant’. administrations are funded, including the The Barnett formula calculates the annual change in the block grant.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 European and External Relations Committee
    European and External Relations Committee Human Rights Inquiry Clan Childlaw About Clan Childlaw Clan Childlaw offers a unique legal advocacy service to children and young people. We are lawyers delivering free legal advice and representation to children and young people, who would otherwise have found it very difficult or impossible to access the legal help that they require. We help Children & Young People up to the age of 18, or 21 if they have been Looked After Children. We deliver specialist training in child law including the following subjects: Children’s Rights in Scots Law; Children’s Hearings; Child Protection and the Law; Looked After Children; Sexual Offences: Children & Young People; Giving Evidence in Court; and A Journey through Care – the legal perspective. We contribute to policy development in relation to the realisation of rights for children and young people across Scotland through our evidence based Policy Development Unit. With the insight gained from our direct legal representation of children and young people, we can (a) offer a unique perspective and (b) use our legal knowledge, skills and expertise to advance policy and its implementation. (1) What is your general view on the UK Government’s proposal to introduce a British Bill of Rights to replace the Human Rights Act 1998? Do you think changes need to be made to the current human rights regime in the UK? No. From a children’s rights point of view protection under ECHR as implemented by the Human Rights Act 1998 by the United Kingdom Parliament and as interpreted by the UK courts with reference to decisions of the European Court of Human Rights is a far clearer application of accepted Human Rights.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Devolution After the Scottish Referendum
    House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee The future of devolution after the Scottish referendum Eleventh Report of Session 2014–15 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 23 March 2015 HC 700 Published on 29 March 2015 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee Mr Graham Allen MP (Labour, Nottingham North) (Chair) Mr Christopher Chope MP (Conservative, Christchurch) Tracey Crouch MP (Conservative, Chatham and Aylesford) Mark Durkan MP (Social Democratic & Labour Party, Foyle) Paul Flynn MP (Labour, Newport West) Duncan Hames MP (Liberal Democrat, Chippenham) Fabian Hamilton MP (Labour, Leeds North East) David Morris MP (Conservative, Morecambe and Lunesdale) Robert Neill MP (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst) Chris Ruane MP (Labour, Vale of Clwyd) Mr Andrew Turner MP (Conservative, Isle of Wight) The following Members were also members of the Committee during the Parliament: Mr Jeremy Browne MP (Liberal Democrat, Taunton Deane) Sheila Gilmore MP (Labour, Edinburgh East) Andrew Griffiths MP (Conservative, Burton) Simon Hart MP (Conservative, Camarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) Tristram Hunt MP (Labour, Stoke on Trent Central) Mrs Eleanor Laing MP (Conservative, Epping Forest) Yasmin Qureshi MP (Labour, Bolton South East) Stephen Williams MP (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West) Powers The Committee’s powers are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in Temporary Standing Order (Political and Constitutional Reform Committee). These are available on the Internet via www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmstords.htm. Publication Committee reports are published on the Committee’s website at www.parliament.uk/PCRC-publications and by The Stationery Office by Order of the House.
    [Show full text]
  • Devolution, Debate and Change: Changing the UK’S Constitutional Settlements Carol Howells and Edwin Parks
    Chapter 2 Devolution, debate and change: Changing the UK’s constitutional settlements Carol Howells and Edwin Parks Abstract Devolution has been ‘a process not an event’ resulting in new constitutional settlements . This chapter covers the processes of devolution, processes which mirror the first 50 years of the Open University and the first 22 years of the OU Law School. The chapter explores the devolution of powers to parliaments in Scotland and Wales. It begins with the referendums of the early 1970s and traces events leading up to both the initial transfer of powers and those resulting in subsequent transfer of powers. The process has not been without its critics and the use of differing models helped create complexity re-enforcing historical legacies. Devolution created new legal orders and challenged accepted traditional constitutional theory. The story is not yet over. 1. Introduction The establishment of The Open University (OU) in 1969 changed the landscape of higher education in the United Kingdom (UK). Its mission of being ‘Open to people, places, methods and ideas’1 and its promotion of social justice through high quality education2 has challenged thinking around educational practices. In the 50 years since it was established it has transformed the lives of many through its work and partnerships. It has students in over 90% of UK postcodes3 and continues to hold a unique position within the UK’s Higher Education sector working across, and receiving funding from, all four UK nations. In celebrating its 50th anniversary its Vice Chancellor expressed pride in being the UK’s only four nations university.4 During the OU’s 50-year history there have been significant changes and challenges within the higher education landscape.
    [Show full text]
  • PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL OFFICE Contents
    SHAPING THE LAW OF SCOTLAND DRAFTING MATTERS! PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL OFFICE Contents Contents Introductory matters Foreword by the Lord Advocate, James Wolffe QC iv Why drafting matters by Andy Beattie, Chief Parliamentary Counsel vi Background viii Part 1: Drafting technique Language Plain language 2 Grammar and usage 2 Punctuation 3 Gender neutrality 3 Foreign words and Latin 3 Particular words and expressions 5 Style Conjunctions 8 Paragraphing 9 Periods of time 10 Dates 11 Numbers and symbols 11 Letter labels 13 Form and key components of Bills Form and content of Scottish Parliament Bills 14 Order of final provisions 16 Long title 17 Short title 18 Commencement provisions 19 Powers to make subordinate legislation 20 Form of subordinate legislation 23 Ancillary provision 24 Technicalities Citation of enactments 26 Cross-references 27 Definitions 28 Numbering 32 Schedules 34 i PARLIAMENTARY COUNSEL OFFICE Contents Amendments and repeals Textual amendments 36 Non-textual amendments 39 Formal headings and framework 40 Repeals 41 Specific legal expressions and terms Referring to a Bill in another Bill 43 Referring to bodies corporate 43 Referring to the Scottish Ministers (individually and collectively) 44 Mode of trial 46 Referring to ‘charges’ and ‘proceedings’ 46 Types of court 47 Part 2: Guidance on specific topics I. Arbitration Arbitration 52 II. Criminal law, justice and procedure Creating offences and penalties Structure of offence and penalty provisions 54 Formulations for creating offences 55 Giving offences names 57 Drafting
    [Show full text]
  • English Votes for English Laws
    House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee The Future of the Union, part one: English Votes for English laws Fifth Report of Session 2015–16 HC 523 House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee The Future of the Union, part one: English Votes for English laws Fifth Report of Session 2015–16 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 26 January 2016 HC 523 Published on 11 February 2016 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Health Service Commissioner for England, which are laid before this House, and matters in connection therewith; to consider matters relating to the quality and standards of administration provided by civil service departments, and other matters relating to the civil service; and to consider constitutional affairs. Current membership Mr Bernard Jenkin MP (Conservative, Harwich and North Essex) (Chair) Ronnie Cowan MP (Scottish National Party, Inverclyde) Oliver Dowden MP (Conservative, Hertsmere) Paul Flynn MP (Labour, Newport West) Rt Hon Cheryl Gillan MP (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham) Kate Hoey MP (Labour, Vauxhall) Kelvin Hopkins MP (Labour, Luton North) Rt Hon David Jones MP (Conservative, Clwyd West) Gerald Jones MP (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) Tom Tugendhat MP (Conservative, Tonbridge and Malling) Mr Andrew Turner MP (Conservative, Isle of Wight) Powers The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 146.
    [Show full text]
  • I. Introduction
    Statutory interpretation and legislative competence: section 101 of the Scotland Act 1998 Christopher McCorkindale* I. Introduction A public lawyer at the Scottish Bar tells of the first time that they invited the Court of Session to strike down an Act of the Scottish Parliament (ASP) on the basis that it was ultra vires in terms of section 29 of the Scotland Act 1998. According to that provision an ASP ‘is not law’ – and therefore may be declared by the courts to be invalid – where, inter alia, it ‘relates to’ a matter reserved to the United Kingdom (UK) Parliament, is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) or is incompatible with EU law. In the words of Ewing and Dale-Risk, the 1998 Act created a ‘clear and unambiguous power (and duty) to strike down legislation passed by a democratically elected Parliament.’1 Yet when, in the early days of devolution, our protagonist asked the Court to do just that the response from the bench was somewhat sceptical: ‘we can’t do that…can we?’ So alien to judicial culture in the UK was the role of courts to review the validity of primary legislation that not even the explicit instruction to do so in the Scotland Act was comfort enough for some members of the judiciary at that time to avail themselves of that power. The source of such discomfort is easy to locate. A defining feature of the UK constitution has been the absence of constitutional review of primary legislation. The traditional approach taken by courts to the legality of Acts of Parliament was captured by Ungoed-Thomas J in Cheney v Conn:2 What…statute itself enacts cannot be unlawful, because what the statute provides is itself the law, and the highest form of law that is known to this country.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future Impact and Effect of Brexit on Scots Law and the Scottish Legal System
    The Law Society of Scotland The Future Impact and Effect of Brexit on Scots law and the Scottish legal system I Chapter1 The Law Society of Scotland: The future impact and effect of Brexit on Scots law and the Scottish legal system Contents Foreword 1 Executive summary 2 Introduction 4 CHAPTER 1 The development of the Scottish legal system 7 CHAPTER 2 The courts and tribunals in Scotland 12 CHAPTER 3 The United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union 18 CHAPTER 4 The consequences of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union 25 CHAPTER 5 The EU impact on Scots Law 40 CHAPTER 6 Common frameworks 59 CHAPTER 7 Teaching EU Law in law schools post-Brexit 67 CHAPTER 8 Conclusions 70 Bibliography 74 III The Law Society of Scotland: The future impact and effect of Brexit on Scots law and the Scottish legal system Chapter IV 1 The Law Society of Scotland: The future impact and effect of Brexit on Scots law and the Scottish legal system Foreword In 2016 the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. In the three years since that historic vote there has been much debate on Brexit and the impact it will have throughout the UK and in Europe, however a great deal of uncertainty remains over our departure and future outwith the EU. What we can be certain of is that leaving the EU will We are very grateful to the Legal Education Foundation have a profound effect on Scots Law and on the legal whose funding has allowed us to dedicate the time and profession.
    [Show full text]