MacCormick v Lord Advocate [1953] SC 396 is best known for Lord President Cooper’s obiter remarks questioning whether the doctrine of unlimited parliamentary sovereignty forms part of Scottish constitutional law.

Facts of the Case

The claimants, MacCormick and Hamilton, challenged the use of the title “Queen Elizabeth II” in Scotland, arguing that as Scotland had never had a monarch named Elizabeth (Elizabeth I having reigned only over England), the numeral “II” was incorrect and breached the Act of Union 1707.

Key Legal Issues

Whether the numeral “II” infringed the Act of Union 1707 or administrative law; and broader questions about the jurisdiction of national courts over governmental action and the extent of parliamentary sovereignty in Scotland.

Decision and Outcome

The action was dismissed and the appeal to the Inner House failed. The Act of Union contained no provisions on the numbering of monarchs, and the choice of a royal title fell within the royal prerogative, leaving no legal basis to sue the Crown.

Key Legal Principles and Authority

  • Royal prerogative: determining a monarch’s title is a matter of prerogative, not for judicial interference under the Act of Union.
  • Scottish constitutional theory: Lord President Cooper observed (obiter) that unlimited parliamentary sovereignty is a “distinctively English” principle with no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law.
  • Limitations on Parliament: he suggested the UK Parliament may lack authority to alter “key aspects” of the Act of Union 1707, though the court doubted it had authority to make a determinative statement on such a breach.

Discussion and Academic Relevance

Cooper’s obiter remarks remain central to debates on the limits of Westminster’s sovereignty, gaining renewed importance amid devolution and constitutional questions after Brexit. Though the ruling on royal titles was narrow, the case grounds the idea that Parliament is not entirely “omni-competent” regarding the fundamental terms of the Union.

Related Cases

  • AXA General Insurance Ltd v Lord Advocate: the UK Supreme Court accepted that Scots law may recognise specific constitutional limits on legislative competence.
  • Reference by the Lord Advocate (Scottish Independence Referendum Reference): the Supreme Court revisited legislative competence under the Scotland Act 1998, building on the framework discussed in MacCormick.