User talk:Connolly15/sandbox

Wrong way round

This is incorrect:

• "having devolved powers to affect changes in certain prescribed matters"

In fact, it is the other way round: it is the powers of the UK parliament which are explicitly prescribed in the Scotland Act (the "reserved matters"), and anything not explicitly listed there is automatically the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. --Mais oui! (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I think the bit that may be confusing is "certain prescribed matters", you're quite right that the Scotland Act 1998 is phrased in a way to set out reserved matters to the UK Parliament. The point I was trying to make is that the Scottish Parliament does not have the same level of parliamentary sovereignty as the UK Parliament.(Connolly15 (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC))

Parliamentary sovereignty is an English, and thus alien, concept. The Scots constitutional tradition is for popular sovereignty. --Mais oui! (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is Scottish constitutional theory, but in the case of the Scottish Parliament its legal existence is derived from an Act of Westminster. The Scottish Parliament does not draw its constitutional legitimacy from the Scottish people like the Scottish Kings did. If the Scotland Act were repealed by Westminster it would cease to exist, its sovereignty is therefore based on the authority of Westminster. Westminster has "passed down" some of its sovereignty to the Scottish Parliament, but in a limited form, which is the fundamental of devolution. It is clear from Stair that the Scottish Parliament is not based on popular sovereignty:

"Thus, the [Scottish] Parliament is a body created by statute, and, in particular, by that Act of the United Kingdom Parliament. As a matter of law, this means, for example, that it has the following defining characteristics.

(1) It is a new body. Its existence, status and operation do not derive from any prior legal authority or institution. In particular, it cannot be viewed in any sense, other than in arguable political terms, as a continuation of, or successor to, the Parliament of Scotland that existed prior to 1707.

(2) It is a body with defined and limited powers. It is a statutory body whose formal powers and duties derive entirely from the ordinary law of the land, rather than from any inherent power or authority, or other external legal or constitutional settlement.

(3) It is a body different from Westminster. Although a 'parliament' like the United Kingdom Parliament at Westminster, it has a fundamentally different legal status from that Parliament." (Stair, Constitutional Law, para. 326)

This was the point I was trying to make. (Connolly15 (talk) 12:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC))