Talk:Scotland Act 2012

Commencement of Bill

The Bill does not require a legislative consent motion to enter into force. An LCM has no statutory force. The Bill, if passed, will come into force in accordance with orders of the Secretary of State and the Treasury made under clause 43 of the as introduced in the Lords. Under the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty, the Scottish Parliament and/or Executive cannot block an Act of Parliament. Per Lord Hope of Craighead in AXA General Insurance Ltd & Ors v Lord Advocate & Ors (Scotland) [2011] UKSC 46 at [46] inter alia: "The United Kingdom Parliament has vested in the Scottish Parliament the authority to make laws that are within its devolved competence. It is nevertheless a body to which decision making powers have been delegated. And it does not enjoy the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament that, as Lord Bingham said in Jackson, para 9, is the bedrock of the British constitution. Sovereignty remains with the United Kingdom Parliament. The Scottish Parliament's power to legislate is not unconstrained. It cannot make or unmake any law it wishes. Section 29(1) declares that an Act of the Scottish Parliament is not law so far as any provision of the Act is outside the legislative competence of the Parliament."

Your use of primary sources is impressive, but not perhaps the most appropriate approach. I don't seem to be able to access the Times reference you just removed, but assuming it confirmed the statement to which it was attached, removing it with the edit summary "factually inaccurate" isn't a credible way forward. It is not up to us to provide our own opinion or commentary. Ideally you can find a reliable secondary source that contradicts the statement and insert that along with a rebuttal. Ben MacDui 17:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

See Primary. "[A]ny educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify" the point that I have put forward. The suggestion that the Scottish Executive/Parliament could prevent the entry into force of an Act of Parliament contradicts basic constitutional theory and the Wiki article: "Parliamentary sovereignty in the United Kingdom". Ultimately, there is no need to find a secondary source to refute a claim which is obviously and patently untrue, even if it has been made by a usually reliable source. ISTB351 (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The Times of London is not just a "usually reliable source", it is generally considered to be an organ of record. The primary source which you provide does not even mention Legislative Consent Motions, let alone counteract the hundreds of reliable external sources which clearly state, in black and white, that an LCM is required. Not just The Times (with restricted online access, but nevertheless widely available), but hundreds of other reliable ext refs which are available. You need to read WP:SYNTH and then defer to official Wikipedia policy WP:VERIFY. (Incidentally, we are not allowed to use other Wikipedia articles as reliable sources, therefore the Parliamentary sovereignty in the United Kingdom article is worthless.)--Mais oui! (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Mais oui! is correct. However frustrating you cannot use your own self-identified expert knowledge and primary sources to make a case credibly here. You need to provide verification per WP:V. Ben MacDui 09:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The Times is a reliable source. However, it is demonstably wrong on this issue. It supposes that LCM's have binding statutory force. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of basic constitutional theory and the Sewel Convention. Section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998 provides that the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland is undiminished by the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and Executive. The website of the Scottish Executive states that "The Westminster Parliament is sovereign and, as section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998 makes clear, has undiminished power to make laws for Scotland as well as all other parts of the United Kingdom". The Bill will enter into force in accordance with orders made under clause 43, and irrespective in law of whether an LCM has been passed or not. The passage of an LCM is ultimately a political rather than a constitutional or legal issue. Merely because 1 RS has been found does not mean that its erroneous claims should be accepted. ISTB351 (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Calling the Scottish Government the "Scottish Executive" is simply childish game playing, and does you no credit. Even the most infantile Unionist politicians have knocked that particular one on the head. (A bit hard for Scottish Labour to mock the word "Government" when their more successful colleagues in Wales did this.) And your highly selective and misleading quoting from the SG website is duly noted.

Your "1 RS" jibe is quite simply preposterous. There are literally hundreds of reliable ext refs saying that SP consent is required.

The Cameron government is on public record as saying that SP consent is required. Unless you have new ext sources that show that the UK Govt has changed its mind, I strongly advise you to change track before you come to the attention of Sysops. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The confusion between the UK Government and Parliament has now been removed, and the current edit is acceptable. It was the previous version, which insisted that the UK Parliament could be prevented from passing a Bill unless an LCM had been obtained, that was unacceptable. Just a hint: it is still called the Scottish Executive, and your comments reveal the nationalist sympathies that have motivated your edits. Try sticking to NPOV. ISTB351 (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Text of The Times article

For the avoidance of doubt, here is what the article actually says:

• "It means that the Scotland Bill, which gives Holyrood increased tax and borrowing powers, could be left in limbo once it completes its legislative passage at Westminster next year. SNP MSPs on the Scottish Parliament’s Scotland Bill committee said that they were unable to recommend the Bill on the grounds that they want the legislation to include the devolution of full tax powers, plus welfare and benefits. Although the Bill will be on the statute book at Westminster by next summer, it could now be parked because legislative consent for it is required from the Scottish Parliament."

--Mais oui! (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a Wikipedian, but I do this stuff professionally. Your discussion of legislative competence issues is, in the Scottish vernacular, mince. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.210.142 (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank-you for your interest in this subject. We are always keen to improve articles and it would be helpful if you could point us to some reliable sources that back up your assertion. Without them your input is unlikely to be persuasive. Ben MacDui 10:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is pretty dire

Zero mention of what the legislation actually entails: landfill tax, stamp duty, borrowing powers, air gun law, drink driving law, speed limits etc. Power to appoint Crown Estate rep. etc etc etc

Wikipedia is extraordinarily weak on Scottish politics topics, and boy oh boy, does it show today.--Mais oui! (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The actual content/ramifications of the act

I think it's extremely important that this article actually discusses what has been devolved. The comment above me mentions some things, but am I (as a Wikipedia user) supposed to come into this talk page and trust a single comment, just to find out the most basic information that I sought when coming on to this page in the first place? C.harrison1988 (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)