MacCormick v. Lord Advocate
|
|
MacCormick v. Lord Advocate (1953 SC 396) was a Scottish lawsuit in which John MacCormick (the rector of Glasgow University) and Ian Hamilton contested the right of Queen Elizabeth II to style herself "Elizabeth II" within Scotland. This was perceived as a breach of the Act of Union 1707 between England and Scotland, since Queen Elizabeth I was Queen of England but not of Scotland.
MacCormick and Hamilton lost their case: it was held that they had no title to sue the Crown, and also that the treaty had no provision concerning the numbering of monarchs — it was part of the royal prerogative. However, the Lord Justice General, Lord Cooper of Culross, gave his opinion that "the principle of unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle and has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law": although Parliament might be permitted to overrule the treaty by English constitutional law, which treats Parliament as sovereign, it might be unable to do so under Scots law.
The outcome of this case became of great relevance in 1999, when the British parliament was proposing the creation of a Scottish parliament.
See also
External links
- Discussion of the case (http://www.lawscot.org.uk/whatis/case8.html)
- Hansard for the House of Lords from 1999 discussing the case: [1] (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldhansrd/vo990427/text/90427-14.htm), [2] (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10810.htm)