Preserving the Rule of Law in Public Law Cases: Keatings v Advocate General for Scotland and the Lord Advocate

Robert Taylor

doi:10.3366/elr.2021.0698

Preserving the Rule of Law in Public Law Cases: Keatings v Advocate General for Scotland and the Lord Advocate

Robert Taylor^* (Corresponding Author)

^*Corresponding author for this work

Law

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

8 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

In Keatings v Advocate General for Scotland and the Lord Advocate, the pursuer, a campaigner for Scottish independence, sought two declarators from the Outer House to confirm that the Scottish Parliament had the power to legislate for a Scottish independence referendum without the consent of the UK Government. Although it concerned a matter of public rather than private law, the case was nevertheless brought as an ordinary action of
declarator rather than as a petition for judicial review.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	231-237
Number of pages	7
Journal	Edinburgh Law Review
Volume	25
Issue number	2
Early online date	31 May 2021
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.3366/elr.2021.0698
Publication status	Published - 2021

Access to Document

10.3366/elr.2021.0698Licence: Unspecified

Taylor_etal_ELR_Preserving_The_Rule_AAM
This is an [Author’s Original/Accepted Manuscript] of an article published by Edinburgh University Press in Edinburgh Law Review. The Version of Record is available online at: http://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/[Article DOI].
Accepted author manuscript, 243 KBLicence: Other

Cite this

@article{6a9f236d75d14838958336489fcd1102,

title = "Preserving the Rule of Law in Public Law Cases: Keatings v Advocate General for Scotland and the Lord Advocate",

abstract = "In Keatings v Advocate General for Scotland and the Lord Advocate, the pursuer, a campaigner for Scottish independence, sought two declarators from the Outer House to confirm that the Scottish Parliament had the power to legislate for a Scottish independence referendum without the consent of the UK Government. Although it concerned a matter of public rather than private law, the case was nevertheless brought as an ordinary action ofdeclarator rather than as a petition for judicial review.",

author = "Robert Taylor",

year = "2021",

doi = "10.3366/elr.2021.0698",

language = "English",

volume = "25",

pages = "231--237",

journal = "Edinburgh Law Review",

issn = "1364-9809",

publisher = "Edinburgh University Press",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Preserving the Rule of Law in Public Law Cases

T2 - Keatings v Advocate General for Scotland and the Lord Advocate

AU - Taylor, Robert

PY - 2021

Y1 - 2021

N2 - In Keatings v Advocate General for Scotland and the Lord Advocate, the pursuer, a campaigner for Scottish independence, sought two declarators from the Outer House to confirm that the Scottish Parliament had the power to legislate for a Scottish independence referendum without the consent of the UK Government. Although it concerned a matter of public rather than private law, the case was nevertheless brought as an ordinary action ofdeclarator rather than as a petition for judicial review.

AB - In Keatings v Advocate General for Scotland and the Lord Advocate, the pursuer, a campaigner for Scottish independence, sought two declarators from the Outer House to confirm that the Scottish Parliament had the power to legislate for a Scottish independence referendum without the consent of the UK Government. Although it concerned a matter of public rather than private law, the case was nevertheless brought as an ordinary action ofdeclarator rather than as a petition for judicial review.

U2 - 10.3366/elr.2021.0698

DO - 10.3366/elr.2021.0698

M3 - Article

SN - 1364-9809

VL - 25

SP - 231

EP - 237

JO - Edinburgh Law Review

JF - Edinburgh Law Review

IS - 2

ER -

Preserving the Rule of Law in Public Law Cases: Keatings v Advocate General for Scotland and the Lord Advocate

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this