In the 2016 Brexit referendum, Scotland voted decisively to Remain in the EU, while a UK-wide majority voted to Leave. This article discusses responses to the constitutional significance of a territorially divided result, both prior to and following the referendum, including in litigation over the ‘constitutional requirements’ necessary to trigger the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU under Article 50 TEU (R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union). It considers what these debates reveal about the uncertain and contested nature of the UK’s territorial constitution, focusing on issues of constitutional security for devolved institutions and competences, and constitutional voice for the devolved territories in handling issues of intertwined competence. It argues that the Brexit episode reveals major weaknesses in the dominant reliance on political mechanisms to give recognition to the constitutional significance of devolution, which do not adequately displace continued legal adherence to the assumptions of a unitary constitution.
AndersonGBellCCraigS (2012) The independence referendum, legality and the contested constitution: Widening the Debate, U.K. Const. L. Blog, 31January. Available at: https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/
2.
BarberNHickmanTKingJ (2016) Pulling the article 50 ‘Trigger’: Parliament’s indispensable role, U.K. Const. L. Blog, 27June. Available at: https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/
3.
BogdanorV (1979) Devolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4.
Bulman-PozenJGerkenHK (2009) Uncooperative Federalism. The Yale Law Journal118: 100–154.
5.
BulmerSBurchMCarterC (2002) British Devolution and European Policy-Making: Transforming Britain into Multi-Level Governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
6.
Constitution Unit (1996) Scotland’s Parliament: Fundamentals for a New Scotland Act. London: The Constitution Unit.
7.
Constitutional Commission (1994) Further steps: Towards a scheme for Scotland’s Parliament. A Report to the Scottish Constitutional Convention by the Scottish Constitutional Commission, Constitutional Convention, Edinburgh.
8.
Crowther-HuntLPeacockAT (1973) Report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution, Vol. II: Memorandum of Dissent. London: HMSO.
9.
Douglas-ScottS (2016) Scotland, secession and the European Union. In: McHargAMullenTPageA (eds) The Scottish Independence Referendum: Constitutional and Political Implications. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.175–196.
10.
DuchacekI (1986) The Territorial Dimension of Politics: Within, among and across Nations. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
11.
DuchacekI (1990) Perforated sovereignties towards a typology of new actors in international relations. In: MichelmannHSoldatosP (eds) Federalism and International Relations: The Role of Subnational Units. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp.1–33.
FordRGoodwinM (2014) Revolt on the Right: Explaining Support for the Radical Right in Britain. London: Routledge.
14.
GrodzinsM (1966) The American System: A New View of Government in the United States. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
15.
HendersonAJefferyCLiñeiraR (2016) England, Englishness and Brexit. The Political Quarterly87: 187–199.
16.
Her Majesty’s Government (HMG) (1998) The Belfast Agreement: An Agreement Reached at the Multi-party Talks on Northern Ireland. London: HMG.
17.
Her Majesty’s Government (HMG) (2014) Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union: Subsidiarity and Proportionality. London: HMG.
18.
HimsworthC (2016) Legislating for permanence and a statutory footing. Edinburgh Law Review20: 361–367.
19.
House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution (2001) Reviewing the Constitution: Terms and Methods of Working. 1st Report, HL Paper 11, Session 2001–02.
20.
JefferyCPalmerR (2007) The European Union, devolution and power. In: TrenchA (ed.) Devolution and Power in the United Kingdom. Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp.218–238.
21.
KeatingMMidwinterA (1983) The Government of Scotland. Edinburgh: Mainstream Publishing.
22.
KellasJ (1992) The Scottish constitutional convention. Scottish Government Yearbook1992: 50–58.
23.
LeviM (1997) A model, a method, and a map: Rational choice in comparative and historical analysis. In: LichbachMIZuckermanAS (eds) Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture and Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.19–41.
24.
McHargA (2016) The constitutional case for independence. In: McHargAMullenTPageA (eds) The Scottish Independence Referendum: Constitutional and Political Implications. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.101–125.
MitchellJ (1995) Lobbying ‘Brussels’: the case of Scotland Europa. European Urban and Regional Studies2: 287–298.
27.
MitchellJ (1998) The evolution of devolution. Government and Opposition33(4): 479–496.
28.
MitchellJ (2009) Devolution in the United Kingdom. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
29.
MitchellJ (2010) Two models of devolution: A framework for analysis. In: StolzK (ed.) Ten Years of Devolution: The New Territorial Politics in the United Kingdom. Augsburg: Wissner Verlag, pp.52–71.
Scottish Parliament Devolution (Further Powers) Committee (2015) New powers for Scotland: An interim report on the Smith Commission and the UK Government’s proposals. 3rd Report, Session Four, SP Paper 720. Available at: http://www.parliament.scot/S4_ScotlandBillCommittee/Reports/dfpr-15-03w-rev.pdf (accessed 9 May 2017).
38.
Smith Commission (2014) Report of the Smith Commission for Further Devolution of Powers to the Scottish Parliament. Edinburgh: The Smith Commission.
39.
SoldatosP (1990) An explanatory framework for the study of federated states as foreign-policy actors. In: MichelmannHSoldatosP (eds) Federalism and International Relations: The Role of Subnational Units. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp.34–53.
40.
TrenchA (2007) Washing dirty linen in private: the processes of intergovernmental relations and the resolution of disputes. In: TrenchA (ed.) Devolution and Power in the United Kingdom. Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp.160–197.
41.
Wyn JonesRLodgeGJefferyC (2013) England and its Two Unions: The Anatomy of a Nation and Its Discontents. London: Institute of Public Policy Research.
