MacCormick v. Lord Advocate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MacCormick v. Lord Advocate (1953 SC 396) was a Scottish legal action in which John MacCormick (the rector of the University of Glasgow) 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. (A historic example of a numeric distinction is found in King James I of England, who was King James VI of Scotland.)
The petition first came before Lord Guthrie, sitting as Lord Ordinary in the Outer House (the usual court of first instance in the Court of Session). He dismissed it; this was appealed to the Inner House, coming before the Lord President (Lord Cooper), Lord Carmont, and Lord Russell MacCormick. There, 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 President, 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 has had continuing relevance, most notably in 1999, when the British parliament discussed the creation of the Scottish Parliament. It has been discussed in a number of later decisions of the courts, notably Gibson v Lord Advocate 1975 SC 136, and the English case of Jackson v Attorney General, 2005 3 WLR 733.
Opinions of the Scottish courts are nominally crown copyright, but copyright is waived so long as quotation is accurate.[citation needed] The full opinion of the Lord President, with which the other members of the Court expressly agreed, has however been much misunderstood in some later commentaries and is not widely available.
It was subsequently decided that British sovereigns would use either the English or the Scottish number, whichever was higher. For example, as there has never been a King Henry of Scotland but there was a Henry VIII of England, a future King Henry of the United Kingdom would be Henry IX; but as there has been a James VII of Scotland but only a James II of England (the same person), a future King James of the United Kingdom would be James VIII.
[edit] See also
[edit] External links
- Hansard for the House of Lords from 1999 discussing the case: [1], [2]
