I’m not convinced the Scottish parliament’s 2009 bill permitting individuals with pleural plaques to sue for asbestos-related damages was a good law. Nor ca one be wholly comfortable with retrospective legislation. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court today upheld the Court of Session’s judgement that the insurance companies could not credibly claim their human rights had been breached nor that the Scottish parliament lacked the standing to legislate on such matters, even when that legislation was a case of overturning or reversing previous Westminster* decisions.
The Supreme Court offered a robust defence of the Scottish parliament’s prerogatives but were I a mischievous news editor mindful of the prickly relationship between Lord Hope and Alex Salmond I might have some fun with paragraph 51 of his judgement:
We do not need, in this case, to resolve the question how these conflicting views about the relationship between the rule of law and the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament may be reconciled.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in