Giving with one hand: Scottish devolution within a unitary state

International Journal of Constitutional Law

Volumn 5, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 730-753

  Tierney, Stephen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 35648989109     PISSN: 14742640     EISSN: 14742659     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/icon/mom024     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (103)

1. Richard Simeon & Daniel-Patrick Conway, Federalism and the Management of Conflict in Multinational Societies, in MULTINATIONAL DEMOCRACIES 338, 364 (Alain-G. Gagnon & James Tully eds., Cambridge Univ. Press 2001).
2. John McGarry, Brendan O'Leary & Richard Simeon, The Integration-Accommodation Debate: An Outline, CONSTITUTIONAL DESIGN FOR DIVIDED SOCIETIES: INTEGRATION OR ACCOMMODATION? (Sujit Choudhry ed., Oxford Univ. Press, forthcoming 2008).
3. Id.
4. Scotland Act, 1998, c. 46 [hereinafter Scotland Act].
5. Scotland Bill, 1997-1998, Bill [104]; THE SCOTLAND BILL: A GUIDE (Scot. Office 1997).
6. WAYNE NORMAN, Preface, NEGOTIATING NATIONALISM: NATION-BUILDING, FEDERALISM, AND SECESSION IN THE MULTINATIONAL STATE xiii (Oxford Univ. Press 2006).
7. See e.g., WILL KYMLICKA, MULTICULTURAL CITIZENSHIP (Oxford Univ. Press 1995);
8. MARGARET MOORE, THE ETHICS OF NATIONALISM (Oxford Univ. Press 2001);
9. see generally MULTINATIONAL DEMOCRACIES (Alain-G. Gagnon & James Tully eds., Cambridge Univ. Press 2001).
10. Ferran Requejo, Democratic Legitimacy and National Pluralism, in DEMOCRACY AND NATIONAL PLURALISM 157 (Ferran Requejo ed., Routledge 2001);
11. Margaret Moore, Normative Justifications for Liberal Nationalism: Justice, Democracy and National Identity, 7 NATIONS & NATIONALISM 1 (2001).
12. MICHAEL KEATING, PLURINATIONAL DEMOCRACY: STATELESS NATIONS IN A POST-SOVEREIGNTY ERA (Oxford Univ. Press 2001);
13. STEPHEN TIERNEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND NATIONAL PLURALISM (Oxford Univ. Press 2004).
14. Sujit Choudhry, National Minorities and Ethnic Immigrants: Liberalism's Political Sociology, 10 J. POL. PHIL. 54 (2002 ).
15. Deep diversity, of course, characterizes America as a multicultural society, but the commitment to the existence of one American nation remains strong. Richard Posner has argued that this reality was put into sharp focus as Americans, otherwise divided on internal issues of culture, united around their common national identity in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. Richard A. Posner, Strong Fibre after All, ATLANTIC MONTHLY, Jan. 2002, at 22, 22-23.
16. John McGarry, Federal Political Systems and the Accommodation of National Minorities, in THE HANDBOOK OF FEDERAL COUNTRIES 416 (Ann L. Griffiths ed., McGill-Queen's Univ. Press 2002).
17. Ferran Requejo, Political Liberalism in Multinational States: The Legitimacy of Plural and Asymmetrical Federalism in MULTINATIONAL DEMOCRACIES 110, 110-111 (Alain-G. Gagnon & James Tully eds. Cambridge Univ. Press 2001): "Despite the usual liberal defence of a laissez faire approach to cultural matters, experience indicates that the state has not been, nor can it be, culturally neutral."
18. The agenda of sovereignty and partnership advanced by Quebec nationalists at the time of the 1995 referendum on sovereignty is one example. See TIERNEY, supra note 9, at 293-299.
19. EUGÉNIE BROUILLET, LA NÉGATION DE LA NATION: L'IDENTITÉ CULTURELLE QUÉBÉCOISE ET LE FÉDÉRALISME CANADIEN [NEGATION OF THE NATION: QUÉBÉCOIS CULTURAL IDENTITY AND CANADIAN FEDERALISM] (Les Éditions du Septentrion 2005).
20. Stephen Tierney, We the Peoples: Balancing Constituent Power and Constitutionalism in Plurinational States, in THE PARADOX OF CONSTITUTIONALISM: CONSTITUENT POWER AND CONSTITUTIONAL FORM 229 (Martin Loughlin & Neil Walker eds., Oxford Univ. Press 2007).
21. For a rare example, see DAVID M. THOMAS, WHISTLING PAST THE GRAVEYARD: CONSTITUTIONAL ABEYANCES, QUEBEC AND THE FUTURE OF CANADA (Oxford Univ. Press 1997).
22. MICHAEL KEATING, NATIONS AGAINST THE STATE: THE NEW POLITICS OF NATIONALISM IN QUEBEC, CATALONIA AND SCOTLAND (Palgrave Macmillan 2001).
23. KEATING, supra note 9.
24. Stein Rokkan & Derek Urwin, Introduction: Centres and Peripheries in Western Europe, in THE POLITICS OF TERRITORIAL IDENTITY: STUDIES IN EUROPEAN REGIONALISM 11 (Stein Rokkan & Derek Urwin eds. Sage 1982);
25. James Mitchell, Evolution and Devolution: Citizenship, Institutions, and Public Policy, 36 PUBLIUS: J. FEDERALISM, Winter 2006, at 153.
26. Union with Scotland Act, 1706, 6 Ann., c. 11 (Eng.); Union with England Act, 1707, c. 7 (A.S.P.).
27. Neil MacCormick, Is There a Constitutional Path to Scottish Independence?, 53 PARLIAMENTARY AFF. 721, 727 (2000). MacCormick argues in reference to Scotland's position within the U.K.: "There is no doubt that we have a single state, but it is at least possible that we have two interpretations, two conceptions, two understandings, of the constitution of that state."
28. FACULTY OF ADVOCATES, RESPONSE TO THE CONSULTATION PAPER BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS AND LORD CHANCELLOR: CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM: A SUPREME COURT FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM (Faculty of Advocates 2003).
29. The legalistic "1707" challenge refers to the argument that the Acts of Union of 1707 constituted fundamental law. See Union with Scotland Act and Union with England Act, supra note 21;
30. see John Robertson, The Idea of Sovereignty and the Act of Union, in THE CHALLENGE TO WESTMINSTER; SOVEREIGNTY, DEVOLUTION, AND INDEPENDENCE 198 (Harry Thomas Dickinson & Michael Lynch eds. Tuckwell Press 2000).
31. SCOTTISH CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, SCOTLAND'S CLAIM, SCOTLAND'S RIGHT (1995).
32. CAMPAIGN FOR SCOTTISH ASSEMBLY, A CLAIM OF RIGHT FOR SCOTLAND, para. 19 (1988). The resilience of this tradition recently resurfaced in the context of plans for a new Supreme Court for the U.K. discussed in section 2, infra.
33. The term Kompetenz-Kompetenz (literally "competence concerning competence") originated in Germany in the context of debate as to whether an arbitrator could have the power to rule on his/her own jurisdiction; now it is used more generally to signify the power to allocate decision-making authority. For a discussion of its significance in the EU context, see KAREN J. ALTER, ESTABLISHING THE SUPREMACY OF EUROPEAN LAW: THE MAKING OF AN INTERNATIONAL RULE OF LAW IN EUROPE (Oxford Univ. Press 2001).
34. States face external challenges both from the expanding normative reach of international law and from new suprastate legal orders, such as, most obviously, the EU. See Stephen Tierney, Reframing Sovereignty: Sub-state National Societies and Contemporary Challenges to the Nation-state, 54 INT'L & COMP. L.Q. 161 (2005).
35. Editorial, Gordon Brown Must Enter the Devolution Debate, OBSERVER (London), July 2, 2006.
36. Government of Wales Act, 1998. c. 38.
37. HOUSE OF COMMONS BELFAST AGREEMENT, 1998, Cm. 3883; Northern Ireland Act, 1998, c.47, §98.
38. See e.g. KENNETH WHEARE, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 49 (4th ed., Oxford Univ. Press 1963).
39. FERRAN REQUEJO, MULTINATIONAL FEDERALISM AND VALUE PLURALISM (Routledge 2005).
40. Scotland Act, §§ 28-30.
41. Id., scheds. 4-5.
42. This competence is of course, in jurisdictional terms, limited to Scotland. See Scotland Act §§ 29(7)(a).
43. Id. at §28(7).
44. See Winetrobe, infra note 83.
45. Scotland Act, §§ 31(1)-(2), 32(2)-(3), 33-35.
46. Id. at §73.
47. Scotland Act §29(2)(d).
48. SIMON BULMER ET AL., BRITISH DEVOLUTION AND EUROPEAN POLICY MAKING: TRANSFORMING BRITAIN INTO MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE 3 (Palgrave Macmillan 2002).
49. Requejo, supra note 13, at 110, 114.
50. WILL KYMLICKA, FINDING OUR WAY: RETHINKING ETHNOCULTURAL RELATIONS IN CANADA 135 (Oxford Univ. Press 1998).
51. Compare Scotland Act, Government of Wales Act, supra note 30 (although note also the Government of Wales Act 2006 which moves Welsh devolution slightly in the direction of the Scottish model),
52. and Northern Ireland Act supra note 31.
53. HOUSE OF COMMONS, SCOTLAND'S PARLIAMENT, 1997, Cm. 3658, at v.
54. As Norman observes, "Perhaps no fundamental feature of the political cultures of multinational democratic states varies more than the ways in which recognition is recognized so to speak." NORMAN, supra note 6, at 157-158.
55. Most notably in the failed Meech Lake process of 1987: Meech Lake Accord Draft Constitutional Amendment 1987; and the failed Charlottetown process of 1992: Charlottetown Accord, Draft Legal Text, Oct. 9, 1992.
56. Resolution Respecting the Recognition that the Québécois Form a Nation within a United Canada, H.C. 87, 39th Parl. (2006).
57. Resolution Respecting the Recognition of Quebec as a Distinct Society, H.C. 273, 35th Parl. (1995).
58. Stephane Dion, Le fédéralisme fortement asymétrique: Improbable et indèsirable [Strongly Asymmetric Federalism: Improbable and Undesirable], in SEEKING A NEW CANADIAN PARTNERSHIP: ASYMMETRICAL AND CONFEDERAL OPTIONS 133 (F. Leslie Seidle ed., Institute for Research on Public Policy 1994).
59. Reform of the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia Organic Law 6/2006 (Parlament de Catalunya), available at http://www.parlament-cat.net/porteso/estatut/estatut_angles_100506.pdf.
60. SPAIN CONST. pmbl. First the recognition of "nationalities" is tempered by the first phrase in article 2, which states: "The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, the common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards." Second it is notable that the nationalities are not named as such; thus the Constitution does not explicitly juxtapose other national territories with "Spain" in article 2. And third reference to "nationalities" runs together with a reference to "regions," which suggests a conceptual elision of the two.
61. Organic Law 6/2006, supra note 52.
62. Michael Keating observes in connection with recent debates over further autonomy for Catalonia and the Basque Country: "What is remarkable ... is how little political energy was expended on the distribution of powers, the precise design of institutions, or relations with the central state, ... the balance of the debate concentrated on a series of highly symbolic and ideologically charged elements." Michael Keating, Rival Nationalisms in a Plurinational State: Spain, Catalonia and the Basque Country, in CONSTITUTIONAL DESIGN FOR DIVIDED SOCIETIES, supra note 2.
63. See supra note 48.
64. Scotland Act, §30, sched. 5.
65. Sujit Choudhry, Does the World Need More Canada? The Politics of the Canadian Model in Constitutional Politics and Political Theory, 5 INT'L J. CONST. L. (I·CON) 606 (2007) (in this issue).
66. The JMC was established under the Memorandum of Understanding 2000 Cm. 4806.
67. Richard Rawlings, Concordats of the Constitution, 116 L.Q. REV. 257 (2000).
68. Alan Trench, Central Government's Responses to Devolution, in ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RESEARCH COUNCIL DEVOLUTION BRIEFING NO. 15 (Economic & Social Research Council 2005).
69. CHARLIE JEFFREY, DEVOLUTION: WHAT DIFFERENCE HAS IT MADE?, INTERIM FINDINGS OF THE ESRC DEVOLUTION AND CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE PROGRAMME (Economic & Social Research Council 2004).
70. Freedom of Information Act, 2000 c. 36 (U.K.); Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act, 2002, (A.S.P. 13).
71. Press releases that have been issued by the JMC have been criticized for their "immense blandness." Robert Hazell et al., The Constitution: Consolidation and Cautious Advance, 56 PARLIAMENTARY AFF. 157, 160 (2003).
72. See also SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, SECOND REPORT ON DEVOLUTION: INTER-INSTITUTIONAL RELATIONS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM, 2002-03, H.L. 28 (calling for the increased use of formal mechanisms in intergovernmental relations and for greater openness).
73. Things have now changed since the separatist Scottish National Party now forms a minority government in Scotland following its success in the Scottish parliamentary election on May 3, 2007.
74. Jonathan Bradbury & Neil McGarvey, Devolution: Problems, Politics and Prospects, 56 PARLIAMENTARY AFF. 219, 221 (2003).
75. Trench, supra note 61.
76. MICHAEL KEATING POLICY MAKING AND POLICY DIVERGENCE IN SCOTLAND AFTER DEVOLUTION, ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RESEARCH COUNCIL DEVOLUTION BRIEFINGS, BRIEFING No. 21 (Economic & Social Research Council 2005).
77. Id. Here Keating is referring to the fact that the university system across the UK is highly integrated in terms of research culture, employment structures and student mobility.
78. Scotland Act, §30(1), sched. 5(7).
79. Martin Burch et al., UK Devolution and the European Union: A Tale of Cooperative Asymmetry?, 36 PUBLIUS: J. FEDERALISM, Winter 2006, at 75.
80. Peter Hain, Europe and the Regions, Contribution 221 to Convention 526/03 (The European Convention Feb. 3, 2003) available at http://register.consilium.eu.int/pdf/en/03/cv00/cv00526en03.pdf.
81. CHARLIE JEFFERY ET AL., THE LOCAL AND REGIONAL DIMENSION IN THE EUROPEAN CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS (European Union Committee of the Regions 2004). Here the advantages of federalism are apparent; for example, in terms of the direct access to EU institutions available to substate territories in Belgium and Germany.
82. Scotland Act, §86.
83. Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Act, 2004, c.13.
84. The same issue arose in Canada at the time of debates over asymmetrical reform for Quebec in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Reg Whitaker, The Dog That Never Barked: Who Killed Asymmetrical Federalism?, in THE CHARLOTTETOWN ACCORD, THE REFERENDUM, AND THE FUTURE OF CANADA 107 (Kenneth McRoberts & Patrick Monahan eds., Toronto Univ. Press 1993).
85. The anomaly was raised in the late 1970s by Tam Dalyell, member of Parliament for West Lothian, Scotland.
86. Examples include the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act, 2003 c. 43; and the Hunting Act, 2004 c. 37.
87. Patrick Hennessy & Melissa Kite, 68% of English Want Own Parliament SUNDAY TELEGRAPH (London) Nov. 26, 2006.
88. Simon Jenkins, There is an Easy Answer to the West Lothian Question GUARDIAN, Jan. 17, 2007.
89. House of Lords Act, 1999 c. 34.
90. Named after Lord Sewel who, speaking for the Government, suggested this process in parliamentary debate on the Scotland Bill. 592 PARL. DEB. , H.L. (6th ser.) (1998) 791.
91. The Scottish National Party has criticized the use of Sewel motions, arguing that the Scottish Parliament should in all cases pass legislation for Scotland. 1 SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (no.11) (June 23, 1999) 694-695 (regarding Deputy Minister of Justice Angus Mackay, M.S.P.);
92. see also Barry Winetrobe, Counter-Devolution? The Sewel Convention on Devolved Legislation at Westminster, 6 SCOT. L. & PRAC. Q. 286 (2001).
93. Scotland Act, §98, sched. 6.
94. Constitutional Reform Act, 2005, c. 4, §40, sched. 9.
95. FACULTY OF ADVOCATES. supra note 23.
96. Id.
97. Constitutional Reform Act, supra note 85, §41 on jurisdiction, §27(8) on composition, and §3(2) on independence.
98. Scotland Act, §29(2)(d), §57(2).
99. In this context, it also seems that tensions between Scots and non-Scots judges are beginning to develop in respect of the human rights provisions in the Scotland Act. Contrast the English law case before the House of Lords Appellate Committee, Att Gen's Ref. (No.2 of 2001), [2001] 1 W.L.R. 1860; [2003] UKHL 68, with a Privy Council case on a devolution issue under the Scotland Act, where Scots judges formed the majority, H.M.A. v. R. [2004] 1 A.C. 462, (2003) S.C. (PC) 21.
100. [2001] 1 W.L.R. 1860; [2003] UKHL 68. For a critique of this decision, see David Feldman, None, One or Several? Perspectives on the UK's Constitution(s), 64 CAMBRIDGE L.J. 329, 348 (2005).
101. This is not a reserved matter. Scotland Act, §30, sched. 5(1)(e).
102. Keating, supra note 55.
103. ALISON PARK ET AL., DEVOLUTION, IDENTITY AND PUBLIC OPINION IN SCOTLAND (Economic & Social Research Council 2004).