Talk:Scots law

Brexit Update?

The entry for this topics states currently states that "Legislation affecting Scotland may be passed by the Scottish Parliament, the United Kingdom Parliament, and the European Union." Is this still true following January 31, 2020? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.32.69.242 (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

This is still needing updated to ensure that it is correct post-Brexit. 175.137.153.1 (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:BOLD 2607:FEA8:585D:5900:758:83D7:4C46:9986 (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Can we redraft the introduction

I wonder if some Users who are experts on this topic could please consider tightening up the introduction. It is of a reasonable quality, but I think a good rethink could turn it into a truly excellent introduction to the topic.

I am particularly thinking about the last paragraph, which looks like it evolved (and it probably did) out of additions higgeldy piggeldy (sp.?) by various contributors. It also lacks what we strive for in terms of a worldwide view (bit too GB comparative, rather than globe comparative). Here is that last para of the intro, at present:

The difference of basis between Scots and English law does not have much obvious effect on day to day life, but while some differences are very minor such as arbiters (in Scotland) being called arbitrators in England, significant variation shows in some circumstances, an example being house buying where Scots practice makes the English problem of gazumping a rarity in Scotland. Another example would be the ability for Scottish judges and juries to return a verdict of 'not proven' in criminal cases. Lawburrows, a summary civil action before a Sheriff to prevent a threat of violence, is another remarkable example. Scottish juries are composed of 15 members.

Much obliged if anyone can expend their intellectual juices. (Keep most of the existing links though: some are very good indeed).--Mais oui! 13:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the basis Scots law and English law is very different and do have very different consequences. I don't know what the point of the above paragraph is but it isn't true. Balfron 19:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The above mentioned paragraph is now:

Although there are many substantial differences between Scots law, English law and Northern Ireland law, much of the law is also similar, for example, Commercial law is similar throughout all jurisdictions in the United Kingdom, as is Employment Law. Different terminology is often used for the same concepts, for example, arbiters are called arbitrators in England. Another example would be the third verdict available to judges and juries (which consist of 15 members) in criminal cases: 'not proven'. The age of legal capacity under Scots law is 16, whereas under English law it is 18.[3][4]

The paragraph, although better than the version above, is still confused. The flow from different terminology to the "third verdict" to the age of legal capacity is disjointed... they have very little to do with eachother. Connolly15 (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the paragraph so it is more fair and outlines the areas of the law that are different in the two jurisdictions and the areas of the law that are similar. I also cite practical differences that the average person may be interested to know about the two systems of law, as well as similarities that are of interest. Connolly15 (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The beginning of the article contains sweeping generalisations about Scots law's origins, that aren't really justified. For example, Scots law never took Roman law as an official source of law- it was only ever used as a guiding (but not binding) source of principle where there was no existing or satisfactory rule. Its real sources are in fact English common law (which makes the bulk of Regiam Maiestatem) Canon law, Feudal law, early Scots statutes, and a small amount of Roman law. Roman law's greatest early influence was in procedure, i.e., Romano-canonical procedure (cognitio in Roman law) was adopted very early on.

Scots law of property is completely different from the English, both in terminology, principles and operation, and is almost wholly based on Roman/Civilian principles (Gretton & Steven, Property, Trusts and Succession p1.4) 84.93.9.160 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC).

Dangerous offender

Does "Dangerous offender" not have a special meaning in the Scottish criminal justice system? There is no mention of Scots law in the Wikipedia article, so I googled it. There seems to be something about a Dangerous Offender Order and Potentially Dangerous Offender; and a ref to "dangerous offender legislation". Does anyone have the requisite knowledge? --Mais oui! 08:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Solatium

An article on solatium would be valued. Thanks. Cutler 20:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Slavery in Scotland

I removed a link to a site that discusses the history of slavery in Scotland. There is no mention of slavery in the article. Should this be added? I'm referring to the Knight vs Wedderburn case.

The link I removed is: http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/abolition/

Any thoughts? mdkarazim (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea, would make an excellent part of legal personality.--129.215.149.99 (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Scottish Parliament

I have just now removed a reference to Ewing's statement being legally inaccurate. I do not think it follows that because the old Scots Parliament had absolute powers, that one cannot say that in one sense it has been "reconvened". I would not say that myself, but I can see why Ewing put it like that. I think it should be understood she was using a degree of rhetoric or romantacism suitable for the occassion. There might be an argument that Ewing's statement, being a bit of a gloss, should be removed. But I don't think it is right to stigmitise it as "inaccurate".

--A.Bakunin (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The old Scots parliament did not enjoy absolute powers (unlike Westminster); the parliamentary doctrines North and South of the border pre-Union were rather different from each other. The new Parliament is, however, rather limited in its powers. "The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctly English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law" -- Lord President Cooper, McCormick v the Lord Advocate 1953 SC 396. 84.93.74.78 (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Surely this sort of thing belongs in the article dedicated to the Scottish Parliament? Connolly15 (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Generally

This article's very low standard reflects two things. Firstly an author cannot do any justice to a subject of this size in an article as small as that. This should be a cover page linking to articles of all the different branches of Scots law. Also the way this has been written is very much structured around what the creator of the page wants to say. I think this talk page should be used in order to properly structure this article and give it the respectablility it deserves. S0673253 (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is Scots law based upon Roman law?

A discussion on the origins of the Scottish legal system is taking place at WikiProject Scotland. Editors of this article may be able to throw light on the topic. To contribute to the discussion, please click here. References, per WP:VERIFY, would be especially welcome! Thank you in advance. --Mais oui! (talk) 08:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Equity

If you'll forgive an Englishman from posting here at all, it strikes me that to say that "Equity does not exist in Scots law" is something of an oversimplification. True, unlike in England there isn't a jurisdictional split, with one set of technical rules of Scots law labelled "equity" and another labelled "common law". But surely that isn't to say that the courts do not exercise any kind of equitable jurisdiction: what about the nobile officium? And Lord Kames thought it worth his while to write his Principles of Equity, even if he concluded that "In Scotland... equity and common law are united in one court" [3rd edn (1778)at 26].

Why does the "Equity does not exist" phrase link to a French book on Google books Poland? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.49.105 (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this merely illustrates the problem of tackling an enormously-complex subject by means of an article in Wikipedia! Kranf (talk) 09:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Recast of Article

This article has a number of issues but I think that the main problems are that it lacks any real referencing and that it goes into too much detail for such a broad subject. I would suggest that a recast of the article is in order and that the new article should contain links to sub-articles that can go into more detail. For example, the current article goes into great detail about the history of the law of Scotland (without any sources though). Much of this should be moved to a sub-article on the topic.

To this end, I have started working on a recast here and I would appreciate any help, suggestions or comments. (Connolly15 (talk) 10:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC))

I thoroughly welcome your initiative. This article, so key to an understanding of Scotland, has been an utter embarassment ever since I joined Wikipedia. I have tried, several times, to drum up interest in tackling it, but have been met with walls of silence. I hope that the little I managed to rectify/reference myself has been of some good.

This is a case for a WP:BOLD editor. If you properly reference your work, you can hardly make a worse effort than the stuff that has festered here for many years.

Sub-articles are to be strongly recommended. Cheers. --Mais oui! (talk) 11:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Having had a quick look at your draft, can I request that you take it a bit easier than my initial WP:BOLD response stated. Especially as regards the Intro.

I suggest that you start by working on some of the sub-sections / splitting off sub-articles, so that other editors can see what you are doing. I strongly recommend that you do not simply copy and paste an entirely new article into main article space in a oner. --Mais oui! (talk) 11:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to work in some of what I've done into the existing article, but part of the problem is the current article's length and overuse of trivia (Connolly15 (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC))

I have made numerous changes to the article which I have detailed and tried to justify below. Please be aware that a lot of the change are not adding or removing anything from the article, but are structural. I plan to do more, but I thought best to take a pause at this point and wait for comments / edits. (Connolly15 (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC))

Introduction

• Here I have reflected the English law article and created a section "Scotland as a distinct jurisdiction" and moved what is said from the introduction.
• I think the introduction still should be reduced as it contains too much information on the history. (Connolly15 (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC))

Comments? (Connolly15 (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC))

The introduction is about the law in Scotland and not Scots law. What is needed is a wiki-compliant lede. It needs to (1) define the topic and (2) summarize the article.

"Scots law is a unique legal system; it can trace its legal roots to various sources of law." does not define the topic: each legal system is unique; most modern legal systems can trace their roots to various sources - which sources have influenced Scots law? Better would be something like:

"Scots law is the legal system which operates in Scotland; it is a mixed system, with elements of Roman–Dutch law as well as common law characteristics. With English law and the law of Northern Ireland it forms the legal system of the United Kingdom; it shares with the two other systems some sources of law and legal institutions but it also has its own sources and institutions."

Then should follow a summary of the article.

Otherthinker (talk) 12:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful comments. I agree with you completely. I had drated this as a possible replacement (I avoid referencing Roman law specifically only because the extent of its influence is controversial):

"Scots law is a combination of statute, common law, academic writings and custom based on a historically mixed grouping of sources, which makes it a hybrid or mixed legal system.[1][2]

I still think it would be useful to say that Scots law is not some abstract concept but an actually existing and dynamic legal system that operates in Scotland and is the equal partner with two other legal systems which operate in the United Kingdom.Otherthinker (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The Parliament of the United Kingdom has authority to create, amend or revoke the law of Scotland, with the Scottish Parliament, since 1999, also having devolved powers to legislate within its legislative competence.[3] A large body of the law is also determined by judicial precedent with the most authoritative sources being the Court of Session and Supreme Court of the United Kingdom for civil law[4] and the High Court of Justiciary for criminal law.[5] Appeals to the European Court of Human Rights are possible where a legal dispute involves the infringement of the European Convention on Human Rights[6] or the Court of Justice of the European Union where European law is at issue.[7] The publications of the institutional writers, who were a group of distinguished jurists, are recognised as a legitimate source of law in Scotland as well.[8] Customary law is the final recognised source; however, its importance is largely historic with the last court ruling to cite customary law being decided in 1890.[9]

Scots law attempts to balance the need for conformity in the United Kingdom in certain legal fields, often for practical commercial reasons, while recognising the traditional uniqueness of the legal system in other areas. For example, laws concerning consumer rights, data protection, employment and immigration are reserved matters under the Scotland Act 1998, meaning that the Parliament of the United Kingdom has sole jurisdiction in these areas.[3] The law of Scotland, however, is unique in the United Kingdom in a number of other fields, especially property and succession laws[10] and court actions, where the involvement of a Scottish solicitor is normally required.[11]"

Thoughts? (Connolly15 (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC))

These last two paragraphs do not summarise the keypoints of the article which follows. They are an interesting introduction to an essay on Scots law, but that is not what is being constructed here: a lede.Otherthinker (talk) 05:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I am now becoming very concerned about the total rewrite of this article. The prose style tends to that of an essay, not of an entry in an encyclopaedia. Furthermore, there are strong signs of a breach of WP:SYNTH. The personality and personal opinions/attitudes of the writer must be supressed, otherwise Wikipedia becomes a platform and not a reference work. --Mais oui! (talk) 06:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I have not made any changes to the lede as it stands, other than add a reference and move some of the existing text to a new section just below it so that it is a bit shorter. I posted this here to get some feedback and it is clear from the response that it needs work. Can you point to where your concerns are for WP:SYNTH please? I don't believe this is the case. Also, I'm happy to remove any personal opinions that you think I have worked into the article, but I don't think this is the case either - all the "opinions" are those of the Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia which is a very authoritative text on the subject. As for style of writing, I'm not sure that it is an essay format as there is no thesis or argument behind what is written, but again, if you want to raise examples or make changes please feel free. (Connolly15 (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC))

Connolly15 has taken on the Herculean task of improving the article. The redraft is well supported by independent, third party, verifiable sources. Connolly15, in true wikipedian style, is inviting comment with a view to seeking consensus. I have some textual critisims but no personal criticism.Otherthinker (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Legal System

• This section is very broad in scope and it's not clear to me what it is trying to accomplish. It seems to mix the history of the legal system, the government, lawyers and courts. These are all worthy topics but need to be better structured. I will split "history and development" into its own section and rename the general title "Legal System" as "Legal institutions" (i.e. Executive, Legislative, Judiciary, Legal Profession). (Connolly15 (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC))
• I then moved the renamed "Legal Institutions" section below sources of law, since the Legal Institutions of the legal system derive their authority from the legal sources. It makes sense that legal sources should be spelled out before the institutions which created them. (Connolly15 (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC))

Executive

• I introduced a section on the Scottish Government as the executive of the Scottish legal system. I moved the existing section on the Minister of Justice and made it a sub-section of this section. (Connolly15 (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC))

Legislature

• I have just moved the bit about the Scottish Parliament under a Legislature section. Probably should add stuff about Westminster as it is an important legal institution created under the Act of Union and so is also "Scottish". (Connolly15 (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC))

Judiciary

• I renamed this "Judiciary" from "Courts". This section will need to be rewritten as it is just a list of the courts by authority. For now I added a link to the main article on the Scottish court system. (Connolly15 (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC))

Legal profession

• I haven't changed this section at all, just moved it below Judiciary. It currently has no sources. (Connolly15 (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC))

Comments?

Sources of Law

Legislation

• I have removed the section on the Human Rights Act 1998 - this is clearly not a source of law, but just an example of legislation and does not need its own sub-section. It also already has an extensive article on Wikipedia dedicated to it. (Connolly15 (talk) 13:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC))
• I removed the numerous sub-headings. In my opinion it creates clutter and paragraphs would accomplish the intended division. (Connolly15 (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC))
• I rewrote the section on legislation. It now contains good references and the order of the sources is more clear. There is also more information on how the sources are created and how they are legally challenged. (Connolly15 (talk) 13:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC))

Common Law

• I have redrafted this section, but have still included all the points that were originally there. I have now included sources and also mentioned some of the background to the disputes over authority. (Connolly15 (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC))

Institutional Writers

• I have redrafted this section. The only element of the original that I have excluded is the suggestion that "some" of the institutional writers were reflecting the methods used by the Emperor Justinian. This statement was unsourced and is dubious in my opinion as many of these works are not attempting to codify at all. (Connolly15 (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC))
• I renamed this section "Academic Writings" so that it matches with the general titles of the other categories. The other section headings are general (e.g. "Legislation" instead of "Acts of Parliament") (Connolly15 (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC))

Custom

• I have expanded this section a little and added more sources. I haven't removed anything that was not already previously said (Connolly15 (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC))

Comments?

Branches of Scots law

• Here I have only moved around some of the sub-headings so that they are correctly located under either Private or Public law and I have added links to Main Articles. (Connolly15 (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC))
• For the Criminal law section, I removed most of what was written as it is already in the main article on criminal law.(Connolly15 (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC))
• For the IP section - I have deleted this completely as it is already covered in the main article on property law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connolly15 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments?

External Links

• I cleaned up the external links- removing blogs mostly. I've kept the websites that represent professional bodies and courts. (Connolly15 (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC))

Comments?

History of Scots law

I've created an article History of Scots law and would appreciate a review/critique/feedback if possible. My thought was to replace the current text (which is 99% unsourced) of this article with a summary from the new article incorporating its sources. The weakness of the new History of Scots law article is that it relies on two sources (the main one is available for viewing on Google Books and is linked, from very reputable authors, the other source is Stair). If anyone can add further information or sources it would be great! I don't have any at the moment, but will have more access to sources in a couple of months. (Connolly15 (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC))

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Scots law/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 10:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments

I normally read the article briefly from start to finish; and then afterwards, I work my way through the article, in more depth, section by section, over several days, but leaving the WP:Lede until last. After this initial read through, I make a decision whether the article is likely to gain GA during this nomination, with or without additional work, in a reasonable time frame. If I conclude that it can't, I might/would Quick fail it. The final decision on GA or not is, of course, made at the end of this review.

• The article appears to be reasonably comprehensive, easy to read and well referenced, although I've not yet checked any of the claims against the references. So I suspect that it will make GA after additional work has been done.
• Note: the reason for leaving the Lede until last is that it should both introduce the article and summarise the main points. In this case, whilst the lede appears to provide a good introduction to the article, but I might change my view on this as I work through the sections in more depth, I suspect that it will be found inadequate as a summary, since on an initial reading it appears to ignore sections of the article (more details will follow later - I'm doing this last but it also has to be considered against each section).
• The lede also appears to "tease" (I could be wrong on a very quick read) by including material that does not seem to be in the body of the article; and the "Branches of the law" section appears to be merely a list with a single paragraph of three sections (more details will follow later).

I'm now going to work my way through the article, starting with "Scotland as a distinct jurisdiction".

The nominator, or anyone else is welcome to add comments, questions, suggestions as I go though the article, but the acceptance criteria is WP:WIAGA, and that's what I'm be assessing it against.

Detailed review

• Scotland as a distinct jurisdiction -

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Ref 3 is cited as Stair, etc, (on line) etc and there are lots of "Stair" citations, e.g. 14, 24, 28, 50, 54-56, 59-60, but there is no link to Stair, so these references are not currently verifiable.

• Found it, its the link to Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia, which is a Wikipedia article. Firstly, it was not too obvious as a "Stair" reference, but far more importantly, Wikipeidia articles generally cannot be used in wikipeidia articles as reliable sources (see also WP:RS). I have no objection to the Encyclopaedia itself being used as a citation, but I'm not accepting the wikipedia article as a reliable source citation. Pyrotec (talk) Pyrotec (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia is the Wikipedia article on the source itself (as it is a well known (amongst lawyers) Scottish legal encyclopaedia) rather than the source of the citations (I don't think I'm violating WP:RS as I'm not actually citing a Wikipedia article as a source). I can't link to Stair itself as it is a pay-for-use legal encyclopaedia. The wikipedia article Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia makes it clear that this source is a legal source that can be relied upon in court. In this sense, you could treat these citations as off-line written sources, which they basically are, I have only included the WP link to Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia to give the reader a sense of its reliability and legal force. I do accept that the citations are not clear and that the vast majority of the sources are offline. Connolly15 (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this, I'm not a lawyer, etc, so "Stair" meant nothing to me. Having looked again at Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia, the reference (as opposed to the individual citations) is being improperly cited. There is obviously a title, a publisher(s), possibly a publication date, there are certainly several volumes since most if not all the citations refer to Vol 22, so there could well be a volume title, (the individual citations provide access dates, so its not needed in the reference) and a web site which requires a valid subscription (there is a way of indicating subscription only, but I can't see it in the template parameters). I suggest that you consider referencing it either using the template {{cite web}} itself, or do it manually using the template as guide. Interestingly, I don't have a subscription, but having looked at Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia, I've not yet discovered a log in page for "Stair", but I have found Vol 23, in Hardback listed on Amazon.co.uk at £6,550.00 but not available for sale (see http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Laws-Scotland-Memorial-Encyclopaedia/dp/040623700X), I've also found a copy of the Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia for 30p (plus P&P) from Betterworld books (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Laws-Scotland-Stair-memorial-encyclopaedia/dp/0406237018). I could afford to verify every claim against the quoted paragraph for that price. Pyrotec (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. The style of referencing is the typical referencing style for Stair used in legal texts; however, I appreciate this is not user friendly so I will attempt to amend later. The title is "Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia" and there are volume titles. I didn't realise there was a style, so will amend. If you are interested in accessing it online it is available through subscription legal resources such as WestLaw or LexisNexis - the publisher does not make it available online themselves. Suspect the £0.30 (plus P&P) is perhaps one volume of the Encyclopaedia and would be outdated... the entire Encyclopaedia in hardback would easily fill a large bookcase (your shipping costs might be pretty expensive too!). Connolly15 (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I found this link [1] to the printed version at LexisNexis's UK shop - its surprisingly badly cited, but it has a title, ISBN and publication date. P.S. The 30p one is an ex-library copy and £2.80 P&P (possibly an error) - I don't want a bookcase full so I'll not be ordering it. If you changed the Reference (I do mean reference, not cites/notes) from the wikipedia article to the lexisnexis web site and added the info they provide, I could close this non-compliance. Pyrotec (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Connolly15 (talk) 00:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• • Ref 6 is in French and appears to be book. I find it somewhat surprising that a French source is needed as verification of the part-statement: "There are substantial differences between Scots Law, English law and Northern Irish law in areas such as property law, criminal law, trusts law"; and a book(?) for which no pages are cited. OK, I'm not going the fail the article for using a French source, but it's somewhat surprising, a possibly copy and paste from the French wikipedia, for example?

Comment: This is a hangover from the "original" article before I re-wrote it. I will look for a better source. Connolly15 (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Connolly15 (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• • I did live and work in Scotland for more than a decade, but not now. I saw purchase contracts stating Law or England / Law of Scotland (one choice crossed out) to be applied to this contract unless otherwise stated. So I get the distinct impression that in the case of such a dispute, it can be pre-agreed which set of laws is to be used. Should this be mentioned in this section?

Comment: Yes sure, contracting parties can opt for any legal system but I see your point as it is especially relevant to the UK. Connolly15 (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• • This Section, particularly the second paragraph is written as an introduction to the differences between English and Scottish law (& NI, but NI is mostly ignored); and the 2nd para gives examples of practical differences, which is fine so far as it goes. It becomes obvious by the "Legal institutions" section that there are practical differences in nomenclature, i.e. both the courts and the practitioners have difference names. I would have expected a short statement to that effect, e.g. there are no Crown Courts, Magistrates Courts, etc, in Scotland and there are no Procurator Fiscal(s) in England - none in this article either.

Comment: Thanks will include when you finish review.Connolly15 (talk) 22:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

 DoneConnolly15 (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• History -

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 15:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Main block (untitled) -

• Generally Good, quite readable and well referenced. However, I'm not sure that I understand the second part of: "The Parliament of Great Britain was now unrestricted in altering laws concerning public right, policy and civil government, but concerning private right, only alterations for the evident utility of the subjects within Scotland were permitted." Firstly, it's not clear what is being claimed: (1) private rights in Scotland can be changed subject to certain tests, i.e. that of evident utility (to Scotland/Scottish subjects), or (2) Parliament can only change private rights in Scotland, subject to certain tests, it can't change them in England & Wales, etc, etc; and, secondly, what is the test of "evident utility of the subjects"?

Comment: Er, yes, I have to agree with you. This was in the previous article (hence it is also unreferenced). It is basically quoting Article 18 of the Act of Union ( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Ann/6/11/part/11 (final sentence)). I am afraid I am not familiar enough with this period of history to be able to answer your questions or suggest amendments to this part of the article. Connolly15 (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• • Influential sources -

• A good subsection.

• Sources of law -
  • Legislation -

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Firstly, a very minor point: citations 33 & 34 refer to Bradley and give a page no., which is great. The Reference however is Bradley & Ewing: so the citations aught to be named consistently.

 DoneConnolly15 (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• The first sentence is (verifiable and) strictly true as of 1998, this date is not given here but I found it in the Sewel Convention redirect to Legislative Consent Motion. The next paragraph discusses two 1998 Acts and the European Communities Act 1972, which "have special status in the law of Scotland". Its a verifiable claim and I'm not going to disagree about their status, but the 1972 Act I suspect became part of the law of Scotland before the Sewel Convention. (see below).
• There is no mention in this section of relationship(s) between the laws of Scotland and the legislature of the Parliament of the United Kingdom prior to 1998, but there is of pre-1707 Parliament of Scotland. Possibly, that leaves a big gap between 1707 and 1998: stuff like the Health & Safety and Work, etc, Act of 1974 which is enforceable in Scotland, however the penultimate paragraph of the unnamed major block in the "History" section states: "The Parliament of Great Britain was now unrestricted in altering laws concerning public right, policy and civil government....". Was UK legislation enforced in Scotland from 1707 until 1998 "unrestrictedly"? If it was not, shouldn't this section mention how it was done?

Legislation between 1707 and 1998 passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom was enforced to the degree that the particular legislation said it had legal effect in Scotland. There were no Scottish institutions that could restrict its enforcement, so to the degree that the UK Parliament wanted to legislate for Scotland it did so "unrestrictedly". My intention was that after the History section everything should refer to the situation as it is today, rather than adopting a today and yesterday approach. What do you suggest is best? Connolly15 (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I had assumed that prior to the formation of the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Affairs Committee (or something similar), a grouping of (Scottish) MPs in the House of Parliament, would have specifically reviewed legislation intended for Scotland at the committee stages before the legislation became law. (I could research this). Traditionally when then there was a Labour Prime Minster at Westminster there were lots of Scottish labour MPs around, so they were able to influence Government thinking. I have no objection to "Legislation" being kept as it is, I just don't think that "when the UK Parliament wanted to legislate for Scotland it did so unrestrictedly"; so perhaps "History" needs to comment on this aspect. I was living in Scotland when "Maggie" introduced the Poll Tax - it did not last long (see Tax per head#United Kingdom and Community Charge). Pyrotec (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Refs 37 & 41 have named personal authors that are not cited.

 Done Connolly15 (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 45 has a publisher (The Law Society of Scotland) that is not named in the citation.

 Done Connolly15 (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• The statement "European legislation will be annulled if it is contrary to the Treaties of the European Union or their spirit, is ultra vires or proper procedures in its creation were not followed.[46]" is rather vague on who will do the annulling. Having looked at ref 46 some (corporate) body has to take the case to the ECJ and pay costs if they loose; and it seems the ECJ does the annulling thorough the EC. Perhaps, the statement could be made clearer?

This sentence is meant to connect with the sentence before it, "Only the Court of Justice of the European Union has the authority to legally review the competency of a legislative act by the European Parliament and the Council." ... the power to "legally review" something would result in it being annulled, so it is the Court of Justice of the EU that does the annulling. I will make this more clear. Connolly15 (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Common law -

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• I suspect that ref 47 has both a publisher and named contributors - following the links backwards leads to this page [2] there is also a University of Glasgow logo on the page, which is somewhat a give away.
• Erskine, the reference associated with citation 58 is inadequately cited. It appears to be properly cited in Academic writings so this seems to have been missed during proof reading.

• • Academic writings & Custom -

• OK.

• Legal institutions -
  • Executive -

• Reg 62 at the time of checking was a broken web link - gives a 404 error message and Checklinks gives it as "Dead since 2012-03-31;\n WebCite archive avalible" (sic).

• • Legislature -

• OK, correct as of 1998.

There has been no constitutional change since 1998, though there is a controversial Bill before the UK Parliament to amend. Connolly15 (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Judiciary -

• OK.

• • Legal profession -

• OK.

• Branches of the law -

• Clearly inadequate, being little more than two lists of topics.
• This is the section most in need of improvement.

• Reading through the article, as a former resident of Scotland, it gives me a history of the law, its institutions and some of its post holders, but it does not relate to me as a person. The article should at least provide some consideration of typical(?) events in my life and the resulting legal events, and perhaps the Branches of the law section is where this should be covered:

• Well, I might be found intoxicated in/on the street or breathalysed whilst driving a car: so I get to meet some police, but which court will it go to, do I need an Advocate, a Solicitor, or both, and is this private or public law?
• I buy and then sell a house/tenement flat (I've done both in Scotland). For me, when buying in the 1970s, I used a Solicitors' Property Centre (because at the time that was the only way), but by the time I sold there were Estate Agents (an English system, not seen at one time in Scotland). The process of buying and selling is also different: i.e. no Gazumping in Scotland. Yet there is no mention of this Scottish institution.
• I get divorced: (not so far) but I happen to know that in Scotland the law regarding the house/home/property is difference to English law and the wife appears to have stronger rights in Scotland than she would have in England (its mentioned on the documents).
• I try and blow up Glasgow airport with a car bomb - it happened. There is no mention of the Procurator Fiscal, I assume they would be involved in the legal process surrounding any car bomb attempt?
• One of my parents dies - i.e. Probate (not Probation, which presumably has a the same Latin root word).

Comment: My intention was that these specifics would eventually be covered off in the relevant sub-articles. For example, I have started writing a substantive article on Scots Family Law which covers your point on divorce above. In my opinion, this article would become very long if it were to cover things in this amount of detail. I could add general summaries of each area of the law with the links maintained if that would help? Connolly15 (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't like this section as it currently exists. If it looked something like English law#Subjects and links with some summarises I would be much happier. However, the lede says Scots law is mostly different to English Law but is sometimes the same. That tends to suggest that the article would provide information on the differences - house buying was different: I sold a house in Scotland (had a Solicitor in Paisley) and at the same time was buying one in England (had another solicitor there) and two estate agents, but that was 21 years ago. We don't have Procurator Fiscal's in England, but I used to go passed the one in Paisley (the office was near Glasgow Int. Airport) so I know they existed then, they might have merged into some larger organisation. Pyrotec (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• The Lede -

• Very adequate when considered in respect of its introductory function, but not so adequate when considered in respect of providing a summary of the main points in the article.

• In particular, it does not mention institutions (courts, etc) nor legal professions.
• It mentions differences between Scottish and English systems, but no examples are given; however specific examples appear in Scotland as a distinct jurisdiction so perhaps summarising/repeating them in the Lede would be unnecessary.

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 08:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Coverage

• I've added this section as "place marker" for consideration of WP:WIAGA clauses 3(a) & (b) plus various sections within the article.

• Currently there are 189 GA Legal articles (see Category:GA-Class legal articles), three of which I awarded GA-status, but none of these 189 GAs are Laws of Country X, in addition there are 925 B-class Legal articles, almost none of which are concerned with Laws of Country X (there is Early Irish law), so there is no obvious precedent for a GA Laws of Country X to guide this review.

• More detailed comments are given in the subsection above about individual subsections. However:

• The WP:Lead provides a good introduction to this article (but it also needs to summarise the main points). The lead also sets the "tone" (perhaps the wrong word) of the article: Scots law is mostly different to English law but is sometimes the same (and perhaps this is a poor summary).

• Scotland as a distinct jurisdiction, History & Sources of law are all "strong" subsections. However, they are very much post 1998, which some pre-1707 legislation: I do question whether the period 1701 to 1998 was a period of "unrestricted" Westminster legislation (I wish to check that for myself).
• Legal institutions probably OK.
• Sources of law, in contrast, is just two included lists of topics.

Interestingly, quite a few articles on Scots laws have a "CourtsScotland template", whereas this article uses the "PoliticsScotland" template. The "CourtsScotland template" is quite informative and I therefore intend to review the scope of this article against that template.

Having looked at the template, there are institutions that are not covered. For instance there is no coverage of the Procurator Fiscal, nor of the Scottish Law Commission or the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 08:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Review put On Hold at 09:50, 17 May 2012‎ (see [3]). Pyrotec (talk)

This has been on hold for close to four weeks; the article has received a single edit early in that time. Is this review going to continue? Is it waiting on the article or the reviewer at this point? BlueMoonset (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

There is something wrong with your arithmetic. 17 May to 12 June is not four weeks. Pyrotec (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

"Close to four": 26+ days vs. 28. The point is that it's been on hold a very long time, well beyond the usual single week. I wanted to be sure it hadn't dropped off the radar and that progress was being made, or could be resumed. Any news? BlueMoonset (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• (1) The editor has been inactive since 18th May, I was hoping that corrective actions would be done so that I can close the article (and pass it). (2) It is up to me how long I keep the review open. This article took me a couple of days to review and I anticipate that it would take some time to completely fix, but no action is disappointing. (3) I don't have to answer to you for my actions as a reviewer. But, I will this time. (3) Since that time I have completed eight GAN reviews, another three reviews are On Hold, and another three reviews are in progress. I at least am doing something about reducing the backlog. I shan't ask how many reviews you have done, since I already know the answer. Your comments were probably well intended, but I manage my reviews via User:Pyrotec/GA reviews which, this month, has been updated once a day, if not more. All the relevant articles and the review pages are also on my watch lists. So none of them have "dropped off the radar". Pyrotec (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Glad to hear it. Thanks for the response. Hope the nominator returns. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Mostly referenced, but in some cases the reference is not fully cited.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Mostly referenced, but in some cases the reference is not fully cited.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   See comments above

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Not applicable.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Not applicable.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

As no progress has been made in one month, I'm closing this review. I would like to see this article gaining GA-status and I suspect that if the improvements listed above were made this article could make GA. I wish the article well. Pyrotec (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Scots law/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Lacks references, per WP:CITE. --Mais oui! 13:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 13:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 05:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Not Federal

The UK is not a Federal system. (Coachtripfan (talk) 14:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC))

Wrong Coat of Arms

Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013

Act of Parliament
Scottish Parliament
Long title	An Act of the Scottish Parliament to make provision, in accordance with paragraph 5A of Part 1 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, for the holding of a referendum in Scotland on a question about the independence of Scotland.
Citation	2013 asp 14
Introduced by	Nicola Sturgeon
Territorial extent	Scotland
Dates
Royal assent	17 December 2013
Status: Spent
Text of statute as originally enacted

Why is the infobox UK legislation displaying the wrong coat of arms for all Scottish Legislation using the info box from the Independence referendum Act 2013 as an example when it doesn't even appear on the text of the legislation?

This is the correct coat of arms so please can this be corrected. (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:6CAB:D16E:4BE3:E085 (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC))

This is proof of this so why is the wrong coat of arms being displayed on the legislation infobox for the Scottish Parliament? (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 10:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC))

Just bringing this discussion to this article. (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:A857:CE18:88E:793B (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC))

Legal systems of the UK

In the third sentence: "Together with English law and Northern Irish law, it is one of the four legal systems of the United Kingdom"

Clearly, listing three legal systems then saying there's four is contradictory. The status of Welsh law as a separate legal system is somewhat unclear, but either the sentence should include Welsh law, or it should be changed to read "one of the three legal systems". 84.71.179.180 (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)