MacCormick v Lord Advocate

John MacCormick (the Rector of the University of Glasgow) and Ian Hamilton (then part of the Glasgow University Scottish Nationalist Association) contested the right of Queen Elizabeth II to style herself 'Elizabeth II' within Scotland.{{cite news |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=W0ZAAAAAIBAJ&pg=1722%2C4938361 |title=Judge dismisses petition on Queen's title. Covenant Association to Appeal |work=The Glasgow Herald |date=18 May 1953 |page=3 |accessdate=20 April 2017}} They claimed it was a breach of the Act of Union 1707 between England and Scotland, since Elizabeth I had been Queen of England but not of Scotland. The action was brought against the Crown, which was represented by the Lord Advocate, who is the most senior law officer in Scotland.

The petition first came before Lord Guthrie, sitting as Lord Ordinary in the Outer House (the court of first instance in the Court of Session). He dismissed it; this was appealed to the Inner House. The appeal was heard by the Lord President (Lord Cooper of Culross), Lord Carmont, and Lord Russell. There, MacCormick and Hamilton lost their case: it was held that the treaty had no provision concerning the numbering of monarchs—it was part of the royal prerogative, and that they had no title to sue the Crown. The Lord President did give his opinion in a obiter, a non binding opinion separate from the Court’s judgment, that "the principle of unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle and has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law". The case was thus constitutionally interesting{{cite book |last1=MacCormick |first1=Neil |title=Questioning Sovereignty |date=1999 |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Oxford |page=54}} as the Lord Advocate "conceded this point by admitting that the Parliament of the United Kingdom 'could not' repeal or alter [certain] 'fundamental and essential' conditions" of the Act of Union.MacCormick v Lord Advocate 1953 SC 396 at p 411 However, the Lord President also held that "there is neither precedent nor authority of any kind for the view that the domestic Courts of either Scotland or England have jurisdiction to determine whether a governmental act of the type here in controversy is or is not conform to the provisions of a Treaty" and "it has not been shown that the Court of Session has authority to entertain the issue sought to be raised".MacCormick v Lord Advocate1953 SLT 255 at p 263

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.{{Cite web|url=http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2005/56.html |title= Jackson v Attorney General |publisher=Bailii.org |accessdate=2010-04-22}}

Winston Churchill suggested that British sovereigns would use either the English or the Scottish number, whichever was higher.{{Cite web|url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/apr/15/royal-style-and-title |title=Winston Churchill, House of Commons Hansard, Royal Style and Title, cols 199-201, 15 April 1953 |work=Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) |date=1953-04-15 |access-date=2010-04-22}}

• Style of the British sovereign
• United Kingdom constitutional law
• Pillar Box War

{{reflist}}

{{Wikisource|MacCormick v Lord Advocate|MacCormick v Lord Advocate}}

• Hansard for the House of Lords from 1999 discussing the case:
• {{Cite web|author=Department of the Official Report (Hansard), House of Lords, Westminster|url=http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldhansrd/vo990427/text/90427-14.htm|title=Lords Hansard text for 27 Apr 1999 (190427-14)|publisher=Parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk|date=1999-04-27|accessdate=2010-04-22|url-status=dead|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110605162849/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldhansrd/vo990427/text/90427-14.htm|archivedate=5 June 2011}}
• {{Cite web |author=The Committee Office, House of Lords |url=http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10810.htm |title=House of Lords - Privileges - Second Report |publisher=Parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk |accessdate=2010-04-22 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110604202014/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10810.htm |archivedate=4 June 2011}}

{{Elizabeth II|state=collapsed}}

{{Authority control}}

{{DISPLAYTITLE:MacCormick v Lord Advocate}}

Category:Monarchy of the United Kingdom

Category:Political history of Scotland

Category:Scottish royalty

Category:Constitution of the United Kingdom

Category:1953 in British law

Category:Court of Session cases

Category:1953 in case law

Category:United Kingdom administrative case law

Category:United Kingdom constitutional case law

Category:Royal prerogative

Category:University of Glasgow

Category:Scottish nationalism

Category:Coronation of Elizabeth II