Erenie – I suggest you read up on this. The UK is a union . Westminster does not have the ability to make legislation on devolved matters. Westminster does not have the authority to alter the devolution settlement at all without the consent of Holyrood.

Remember the judiciary is independent and Scotland has its own judiciary anyway.

Wetminster can pass any law it wants – its irrelevant to holyrood. Holyrood is not subordinate to Wetminster.

This was very carefully done as a part of the devolution settlement

Such a move would be an act of (civil) war: and we all know the government never engages in illegal wars…

The UK is a union

I don’t dispute that – I am not suggesting that Scotland submits to the will of England. The fact that the government of the United Kingdom meets in the Westminster district of London is quite irrelevant. Scotland is not an independent sovereign state – the United Kingdom is. A fact which is internationally recognised including by, the United Nations. Scotland might well have the ability to pass laws, but so do LAs.

Changing the constitution of the UK is remarkably easy and just requires a simple parliamentary majority (see reforms of the House of Lords, Devolution, Supreme Court, arrest/detention, etc) Without a written constitution, it just requires nothing more than a majority of one.

I’m not good on the Scotland Act by any means, but if TJ is correct (no reason to doubt it) then the act represents a very large deviation from the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty as it has been understood for a long time. The argument that parliament did not have the power to pass the act so as to operate as TJ describes would be quite a strong one. But the question would surely be basically one of politics and legitimacy anyway rather than strict legality. Presumably the government doesn’t really want a tedious neo-colonial war on the northern border of Conservative-held territory. 🙂

if TJ is correct (no reason to doubt it) then the act represents a very large deviation from the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty as it has been understood for a long time.

Yep, that is why I don’t believe he is correct.

Whilst I fully accept that under existing legislation, any change in the powers of the Scottish parliament might require agreement by both the Scottish and UK parliaments, I do not accept that the UK parliament lacks the lawful means to repeal any previous acts.

Quote :

“As devolution does not affect the sovereignty of Westminster Parliament, there are no legal guarantees as to the existence of the Scottish Parliament”

And :

“The United Kingdom is a single legal entity. Parliament delegates power to local authorities, devolved governments and to ministers of the crown in order to make secondary legislation, known as Statutory Instruments. However, Parliament could at any time take all these powers back by passing legislation; for example: devolved government in Scotland would be abolished by the repeal of the Scotland Act 1998”

Again I repeat, I think TJ is getting “doesn’t want to” confused with “can’t”.

you are correct that they could repeal the original act. However what would then happen if Scotland chose to ignore it ? They could just declare independence at holyrood then what? The non Scottish parliament [uk one]would trump the Scottish one in International Law ?- I very much doubt this – dont know for sure tbh and I doubt the Union could be upheld legally.

Having looked further into it its not as clear as I thought -Westminster cannot alter the scotland act without holyroods consent – but the Westminster parliament could attempt to pass a bill to supercede the Scotland act – ultimately it would be down to the courts to decide is my reading.

However what would then happen if Scotland chose to ignore it ?

That would be illegal.

Maybe you need an expansion of the first quote :

“the doctrine of legislative supremacy only connotes the absence of legal limitations to Westminster Parliament. This clearly does not involve the absence of political obstructions to the repeal of the Scotland Act 1998”

I am working on the assumption that all suggestions on this thread is based on what is lawful.

BTW, I am not suggesting that extra-parliamentary activity and insurrection isn’t necessarily justified, but I didn’t think that the option of revolution was what was being discussed here.

Presumably but what would happen if there was a Scottish referendum – done by Holyrood- for independence as the act was repealed?
Would the UK invade and impose it’s will despite the clear wishes of the people of Scotland? Would this be legal under international Law – is the right to self determination not enshrined ?
I honestly dont know and very much doubt the scenario will ever happen.

‘dey dook are jawbs’