Talk:Constitution of the United Kingdom/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Lede

The passage in the lede sourced from Manuel v. Attorney General seems to be not only OR based on a primary source, but also a misreading of that source. The proposition is stated in the judgment to be one of three propositions, each one of which must be arguable for the plaintiffs to succeed. It then goes on to say, regarding this proposition:

"This submission raises points of great interest and fundamental importance to constitutional lawyers but, for reasons which will appear, we do not find it necessary to deal with them. For the purposes of this judgment we are content to assume in favour of the plaintiffs that the first of the three propositions to which we have referred is correct, though we would emphasise that we are not purporting to decide it."

That looks to be an explicit statement that they did not decide that this point was arguable, let alone decide on the point itself. I am therefore removing this passage from the lede. Brunton (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe you're misunderstanding the concept of a "orbiter dictum", it's not law, it's simply highlighting that the court is abstaining from who is correct then leaving their opinion on the matter (but carrying on with the norm fully or to the minimum a degree if there is a persuasive compromise)... I believe you've misunderstood the quote. It is fine on the page, it's just the wording that's possibly iffy. Original research comes under conclusions of one's own... this is a judgement from the court... far from that. I'm reviving what was put because I don't agree with you're reasoning. 94.15.239.239 (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The OR is in the conclusions you are making about the importance of this judicial comment. If it is to be included we need secondary sources supporting its notability. The judgment itself cannot do this, and in any case makes it explicit that it does not decide the point, but is accepting it for the purposes of the particular judgment; see the passage I quoted above. Of the other two sources cited, the first doesn't seem to mention this particular point, at least at the page linked to - can you provide a page number? The other, while it does at least include the quoted passage, then goes on to undermine its importance by quoting another work as saying that it "contains a tiny judicial hint that English courts might consider a future UK Parliament bound by a stipulation as to manner and form, although under what conditions this might be is difficult to predict". This seems a little speculative, and parachuting the quotation into the lede is giving it grossly excessive weight. Even if it belongs somewhere in the article, which I think is doubtful given the description of it as a "tiny judicial hint" as to what might happen in unknown circumstances in the future, it would be adequately summarised in the lede by the statement that "there is some debate about whether the principle of parliamentary sovereignty remains valid". If it is to be included in the body of the article its status and importance will need better sourcing, and better referencing, for example to include the page numbers where the supporting text can be found. Brunton (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Facepalm... The only person conducting original research is yourself - I mean no offense but it's laughable when you're accusing me of making conclusions as I have copied from the exact texts which is a silly argument to be making to begin with. You don't seem to understand or what to understand what orbiter dictum means. Thereof you are making your own judgment to undermine the source. It fits where it is as it's based on the same topic of discussion within the sentencing. The only individual making speculations is yourself judging sources... someone switched sources to the former source which itself wasn't a very valid one and ended up being used to sabotage the text. The "debate of parliamentary sovereignty" is separate as that is EU related (as it's currently debated and it's more assumed in the sense of within the media. To add content all that's needed is; sources supporting it and relevance. The criteria is met and you're speculating which doesn't hold water. 94.15.239.239 (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

To seal off this discussion for once and for all you can see this as I've been generous in googling the author to show how his content still remains valid which removes all due weight from your accusations;

https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/law/staff/michael-gordon/

He is the author of the second cite and is validly recognised to give input on the matter.

The text is all good so please stop trying to remove it based on a "Confusion of the inverse" argument ie; A judge stated orbiter (meaning it's not strict judgement) therefore you assert because it's not a strict judgement (a pov), this supports your claim that it shouldn't be mentioned on wiki as a reference... they wouldn't have said it otherwise and this is clearly not how orbiter dictum works and rather you're coming across as being persistent with this (it's you're own argument therefore you're own research, so please stop wasting my time with it). Also "Affirming the consequent"... Yes, the source is also claiming (call this A); "contains a tiny judicial hint that English courts might consider a future UK Parliament bound by a stipulation as to manner and form, although under what conditions this might be is difficult to predict" (which doesn't present itself as an affirmative with the word "might") and you're saying that "A" (the quote on wiki) whether selected or not rules is ruled out because of the quotation of "B". I already told you that and you're taking the p abit making me say it twice is all as it's obvious you're not being honest here but being belief driven when this isn't nice for other peeps who use wiki, just saying and please end it there as it does waste my time in general doing this. 94.15.239.239 (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

If the sentence is proving controversial or too complex for editors (or readers) to understand then it should be reworked and consensus gained before adding back to the article. This is the normal editing approach for Wikipedia articles. Whizz40 (talk) 21:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

A court within a case has however, stated obiter (making it clear that they were not purporting to decide lateral issues) that it was content to assume that the following proposition was correct: ‘that Parliament can effectively tie the hands of its successors, if it passes a statute which provides that any future legislation on a specified subject shall be enacted only with certain specified consents’.

But this really isn't an obiter dictum is it? It was a strike-out application. Rather than decide the point the court simply assumed it so they could get on and reject the application on less complex grounds. An obiter dictum is an opinion of a judge (or court) about something that is not controlling. The court expressly says "we do not find it necessary to deal with them". An assumption and an obiter dictum are quite different things. The second cited textbook makes it clear (the first doesn't refer to this point) that we are talking about a mere assumption here. Of course I thoroughly disagree with the interpretation put on it in that work (because, how to confuse the minds of law students) and so citing that source for the interpretation is fine, though I am sure we could do better. Francis Davey (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

That's pretty much how I read the judgment: the court explicitly said that it accepted it for the sake of argument, not because they were accepting it as a statement of their opinion. The sourcing doesn't support it as being of sufficient significance to be inserted into the lede. The first source cited is just the judgment itself, a primary source that cannot establish its own significance. The second one doesn't seem to say anything about this particular point. I did eventually manage to find a page which included the quotation, but the discussion about it was to do with issues of geographical jurisdiction (IIRC, I can't find it again now) so doesn't establish the significance of this particular point. The only source so far cited that addresses the point describes it as a "tiny judicial hint". It's debatable whether it is significant enough to be included anywhere in the article; it certainly doesn't belong in the lede. If it is to be included anywhere, on the current sourcing it would be adequately summarised in the lede within the existing statement that "there is some debate about whether the principle of parliamentary sovereignty remains valid". And if books are being cited, can we please have page references rather than just bare links to Google Books searches? Brunton (talk) 12:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

"But this really isn't an obiter dictum is it? It was a strike-out application. Rather than decide the point the court simply assumed it so they could get on and reject the application on less complex grounds." This is your interpretation on the matter and you're creating a situation exclaiming it's too difficult to understand when quite obviously you do understand what it means as by your response of correctly stating what orbiter dictum means but adding a personal motive towards the matter. No consensus is required for text + cite as rightfully stated. Everything said for the source has yet to be refuted to be put down and people seem to be attacking outside of the argument of whether this has been stated. The fact is it has and by attempting to remove this from the page this is a form of consoreship for personal motive. If the judge has "decreed" (to a fair extent) an opinion on a matter that is relievent to a court case, this is the exact definition of an orbiter dictum if it places no effect on active judgement. So everything stated here has simply been no more than dishonest remarks. I'm re-putting up the text which should not be removed unless there is a flaw which there really isn't, this debate is at an end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.180.23 (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, removed. 90.219.180.23 aka 94.15.239.239 aka Anonymous573462 aka Anonymous 573462i aka etcetera etcetera ad nauseam simply doesn't understand the topic and continues to make personal attacks on other editors. When challenged by someone who actually knows the subject he retreats, gets a new username or IP address, and comes back with more of the same. As long as he was only vandalising Astrology I wasn't too bothered: now he's back on the UK law pages I feel I have to act. 90.199.239.197 (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you an internet troll? A witch hunt, no rules broken, and I can't see any ad hominem, please get one fact straight if you're going to accuse me of anything. I'm restoring the lede as this seems like someone pulling a humourous prank. 90.219.180.23 (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Just responding to your comments on my quotation: I certainly didn't say "It's too difficult to understand". I am not entirely sure I understand all you do say, but the court certainly didn't "decree" the point you are making. They said they did not have to decide it and they did not do so. Francis Davey (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you please stop changing the subject in question... text + source is valid. an invalid source requires invalid information. The information is supported by wiki's own orbiter dictum page as the text was reworded to suite that. If you have a problem with the wording consult there. specifically "none-binding". Reviving as of suggesting "poorly worded" when the wording is the same as there. To suggest "decree" isn't figurative appears dishonest, ofcourse that's not the correct word as no-one's sure of the word there. As this argument shouldn't really exist in the first place. It was said in court and is recorded is closer to the point. The text gives a more qualified verdict as it is written by someone who is actually a professional and says it's orbiter dictum, you're not in a position to suggest otherwise. 90.219.180.23 (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The main problem with what you keep putting back into the lede is that it is not grammatical English. It also uses incorrect phraseology (eg "a court within a case" is not a phrase used in English law). It is also a topic that does not belong in the lede. If, as you say, a court has suggested some proposition, obiter, then it may well be worth mentioning in the body. I suggest that you do that anyway. Including any academic commentary would be good because of course that helps avoid original research. If this is (as you think) a notable point of view about the UK constitution then it deserves a subtopic in this article. A single sentence referring to the subtopic in the lede might then be sensible. I doubt it myself. I doubt it is important enough to deserve mention in the lede, but that is something else to argue about. If it has no place in the body it shouldn't be in the lede alone.

I was rather hoping you would respond to my edit by trying to put something together that was more likely to work. Francis Davey (talk) 06:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to paraphrase as this is supported by wiki's policy. 90.219.180.23 (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Counting myself, there are 4 registered users and 1 IP opposing the repeated additions of material by a single IP. This is very clearly edit warring. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The sourcing for this just doesn't support its inclusion in the lede. The first source given is the judgment itself, which seems to explicitly say that it is not stating an opinion on this point; the second one merely quotes the passage in question as part of a longer quotation, and comments on a different aspect of the longer quotation, not the point that is being added to the lede here (as far as I can see - any chance of a page number or a quotation of what the author of the book says about it?); the third describes it as a tiny judicial hint. It is not a recent judgment: if the point was important enough to include here without giving it undue weight it would be widely discussed in constitutional law textbooks. If adequate secondary sourcing could be provided it should be added to the body of the article, not the lede. The sourcing, if from a textbook, needs to include specific page numbers where the information can be found so that it can be verified. The lede should summarise the article content. Brunton (talk) 06:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Can we avoid topics that have already been debated; perhaps if you raise them do number them to make this more simple.

Tom (North Shoreman), I left clear statements after every revision. Perhaps we should start there since edit warring abruptly suggests that I'm at fault without being given a fair share in the matter. Also, the revisions were under the assumption of policies said to be broken but not factoring in former (overruling policies). For instance; Not original research - tick, NPOV - tick (the content isn't even contending in the slightest), and verifiability - (as stated I cited the author in this thread, they're qualified... so tick -I am of-course willing to go into this further-)... as from those policies existing from the context, the context has the right to exist. That's backed up by wikipedia policy.

So far, and to summarise as clearly as possible as I am speaking with many individuals at the same time; revisions have been made based on (more fundamentally) "difference of understanding", "not understanding", "disagreement of location", "grammar or not paraphrasing", "context from a source (which is written by a verifiable author) is being disagreed with but doesn't actually reflect the content being put within the article", "lack of consensus accusations before checking policy", now "edit warring" and "not being a registered user related"

Not only is this tireless, none of these policies directly portray removal as of the first 3 policies being well met to a narrow outlook... furthermore you should really instead be leaving "dubious - discuss", if I maybe frank, the behaviour of portraying almost endlessly, finding a new sub-policy (for atleast 2 months now) as an attacking position to remove the context close to arbitrarily after a middle-ground is stated or counter-judgement is being made presenting either a potential flaw in the argument or directing to evidence - is coming across or very close to a partisan movement, tending to vandalism (there's assuming good faith, then there's a kindergarden approach with the policies that's shown at times to be heavily reckless) but is also becoming very ---harassing---. There's already been a user ip on here who has showed clear interest into committing to such, not even they had policies to reference from with their ill-will and poo-pooing.

So, before I really begin with this, I'd like you to ask based on the numerous dispositions I've had to go through already and seems more than fair to judge who will judge, are you actually here for a serious conversation on the context, or are you here to play childish games? Sure, you can pin-point at every counter-claim being made that it seems unfair that you're view is not being for-filled but rather someone else's (ignoring any sense of the vise-versa) but I'm not convinced with some here for sure that any discussion following on is a policy-based discussion but rather some damsel in distress routine until your way is met. For those who do not have anything serious to put forth, please do not attend this discussion that I shall assume will continue more respectfully from now on. This could be none of you to all of you perhaps. I'm not that interested and can't be made to feel sure. I honestly feel like I've said everything necessary before and it's just been ignored (latest example is a statement made in a recent edit saying location is more pragmatism based than consensus based, as one example off the top of my head can conclusion; let's say we all consented to realigning all the paragraphs in the article in reverse order, this may have appealed to the consensus verdict within a form of policy, but in practice, to future users and non-editing users this is going to be an eye-saw and cause an edgy effect - The point in short is that you should be desperate to show that you yourselves are being very careful with amendments you suggest to make with more grey-area policies or stuff in general arguably by looking for "non-grey" matters to support your arguments to which is not based on difference of opinion but rather hard facts), I have also built up the sense that some here are hoping that they're going to remove content based upon the majority appeal as it's well-known that consensus plays a large role on wikipedia. (Just not in all cases it's fair to add). I accept (and have) that the content may not be the most perfect as it is (paraphrasing and location for example), I did, according to my own assessment make changes where I think I could, I offered anyone here to make improvements further-move if they see better (which I argue is the progressive stance to be making as I'm currently unsure of what to do further or at-least for now). This matter has been unbelievably outrageous. I'll be waiting for some responses hoping to see, only those with "genuine, policy based concerns acknowledging the protocol and not nit-picking" narrowing just the policies that maybe of actual concern (not a difference of opinion matter but rather hard fact - furthermore, the only claim that can really be subjected to an opinion vote within the source is the "orbiter dictum", which is said by qualified individual to make and another source also states it so - I also agree with it being so, there are no other sources suggesting it isn't), willing to deal with this maturely, and for the rest to take a step back, ask whether the changes you seek are benefiting the article by deducing potential content (but I will say, if conducting funny-business to knock it off and forget it is an understatement through the inconvenience I've gone through) and have a sense of the "Golden Rule" in future practice please.

Thankyou and sorry to anyone who had got caught between some statements who are giving me some flexibility (I tried writing this as best I could to avoid such) or for any spelling errors in advance. This wasn't an easy process.

Brunton - link to author... https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/law/staff/michael-gordon/ 90.219.180.23 (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Most of the above is not relevant. You've made your argument earlier -- I find those in disagreement have made the better case. You have failed, at this point, to convince anybody that your edits should be in the article, not to mention the article lead. Wikipedia works by Consensus -- not by some strange process of attrition where a single editor can endlessly overrule five editors simply by repeatedly adding back objectionable material. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

That IP, could also be someone from here, I've said all I needed to state and fair game to you if you gain the vote... A jobsworth move in undermining the ability for the article to expand. I wouldn't agree that the consensus is fully clear, people had different points to make at different times. I know that it's against policy to contact people you may know to gain editing control and partisan is also an issue, on account of the stalking by IP... that doesn't seem impossible by some users considered voters. I am also concerned how this issue became more important to someone from the US than anyone from the UK as it is. That being User:North Shoreman 90.219.180.23 (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

After some time, I've drawn up a list of reasons of why the text could be more relevant;

1. I had previously seen on tv, (although I can't really reference when or who), a dark skinned man who I think was a labour mp who had stated that he was "for government by consent". - I'll try to see if I can find the video clip but this sounds tricky.

2. On a different matter after reading quotes from Abe Lincoln, that he himself has stated "No man is good enough to govern another man without the other's consent." - www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/abrahamlin105434.html

3. There is also within the first version of the bill of rights (chapter III) which was the UK's version (being law) from 1689-1857, written that older laws (one being contract law) are to remain intact. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp

The text being included does not does not rearrange the view of the constitution any different to before, but does highlight the matter, based on the above points and within the modern period it can be fair to state that the idea isn't alien to a proportion of the British public. 90.219.180.23 (talk) 12:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Edit request

Prior to the full page protection (semi-protection had been requested) there was a consensus (see above) that material being added repeatedly by an IP did not belong in the article lede. Editors Brunton, Whiz40, Francis David, another IP, and myself object to the addition while nobody (other than the single IP) has expressed agreement.

It is requested that the last edit by the IP before the page protection be reverted. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Tom (North Shoreman) appears to be a grandfather from the US, and Brunton (who made one of the earlier reversions has created articles on US blue's music (they would then both near the same age category when you check the dates of these album's or musicians). The unlikely-hood of two US members both checking the history of this article within 2-3 months seems very questionable. If an administrator comes, Please confirm for Brunton to be a usual viewer in the past, and see if Tom (North Shoreman) is new here as he may infact have been asked by Brunton to be used as a second staged-vote. please check also their IP districts if the former request is confirmed. No full clear consent has been given by anyone else which would make this a third connection. (but somewhat the IP could be a potential participant to make the revert but I'm not sure if this specific request becomes for-fillable if there is cheating) - I'm leaving this below the request, for Tom to infer for these other members, that they would want a full protection on the page is also another matter completely, this means not allowing many members to edit and at ease, there isn't actually anyone else's expressed consent to this specifically. Thanks. 90.219.180.23 (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see great harm in leaving this disputed statement up for a few days, to draw more attention to this discussion. Rather than count !votes and look for meatpuppets, I would prefer to see further discussion on the meaning and relative importance of the statement. Towards that end, I'm attempting to reboot the discussion in a more productive direction which might lead to a more durable consensus. wbm1058 (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

90.219.180.23 is, of course, currently under investigation as a sockpuppet.[[1]]... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.113.177 (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Ick. I see one of those IPs split their time between here and astrology articles. My patience is nearly exhausted.

Done text reverted per consensus. wbm1058 (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Questions, to assess the meaning and relative importance of the statement

• Christopher Slade was a Lord Justice of Appeal in 1982 when he made this obiter dictum remark. That's only the second highest level of judge in the courts of England and Wales. How significant is his remark, in the context of the entire legal system ("constitution") of the UK? The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom did not make this remark. What if a single member of the Parliament made such a remark? wbm1058 (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

A precedent from the Court of Appeal is binding on all lower courts, and, I think, on all subsequent Court of Appeal decisions. The authority of the particular judge isn't the particular issue here; rather it's what he actually said. He doesn't say that he agrees with the proposition, but that he accepts it for the purposes of argument in this particular case, because even if it is accepted as true the case fails on other grounds. Read the judgment from the paragraph that starts "If, as we hope and believe, this is an adequate, albeit abbreviated summary..." To the one ending with "...we would emphasise that we are not purporting to decide it." To include the quotation anywhere without making this clear is to take it completely out of context. Brunton (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• We list eight "important judicial decisions" of Lord Justice Slade, but Manuel v Attorney General is not one of them. Why not? Would an article on this case help to resolve this matter? wbm1058 (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• It's interesting to see that we have an article on the UK Constitution, when they don't even have a single written document. Indeed Britannica doesn't have such an article; their discussion of the UK is limited to a subtopic of their Constitution article: The practice of constitutional government. In that, I read that "It is accepted constitutional theory that Parliament... can do anything it wants to, including abolish itself. I suppose that's a more colourful way to state the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, which holds that the legislative body may change or repeal any previous legislation. Surely, a body with that power could not "effectively tie the hands of its successors", unless its successors consented to let their hands be tied? Are there any other opinions on this matter besides Lord Justice Slade's, and if so, should those opinions be included in the article, for balance? wbm1058 (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• "Parliament can effectively tie the hands of its successors, if it passes a statute which provides that any future legislation on a specified subject shall be enacted only with certain specified consents’." What does certain specified consents’ mean? wbm1058 (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I am an American with reasonable knowledge of the US Constitution, but no background on the UK. I've learned a lot just by researching this debate. Please do comment under one or all of my bullets, to move this forward. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I see that this is addressed for an administrator(s), but to part in on a particular topic, there is an anomaly to the British constitution making a straight answer towards "How significant a remark is - from anyone" somewhat clairvoyant, if someone were to summarise without including the major range of factors to the UK constitution, the answer at facevalue is probably almost null (I like what this prime ministers says because x, this judge -> x, this citizen -> x etc... what makes a remark usually significant is 1st. how often does it appear or 2nd. whether it presents an alternative (negative or positive) to types of events involving the state of affairs. Everyone calculates this differently as there is no concrete and continuous referenced rules of law, the questions that may find suite are; 1. what do the people within positions of power make of any "remark" and then, how have the public reacted to it or historically what has happened?- There have been decisions overturned by different departments to other departments (governmental and sometimes non-government, ie; amnesty international have sometimes contributed to certain decisions)... it's usually (I'd say) because of how local they are to the given upcoming scenario. Perhaps, that forties the prospect of an unwritten constitution. The difficultly with the "doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty" is it's very broad potential to rescript continuously making keeping track very difficult, it's also difficult to navigate how situations will always go. This page has highlighted the general outlook, but it hasn't made significant accustom to how and why alternative processes have been made. Nor, does it really highlight attributed demand structures accommodating to different entities (legal and non-legal), which, surprises me a little, since no law is specified or (in reality can be) used to deny anyone of their plans or presenting an alternative (and isn't sustainable to every scenario due to the condition of nature). We find that an agenda to undo just that is what drives the lack of significance to certain prospects. It somewhere along the lines, explains Britains general negativity to not get along with each other, similar to how Peter Hitchen's has before summarised us. 90.219.180.23 (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, you misunderstood me. I'm an administrator asking the questions, but my intention is for any and all interested editors to respond. I'm afraid I'm having trouble parsing what you just wrote above, and I don't feel like it says much to support keeping the disputed text. Feel free to respond more directly to my bullet-questions above. wbm1058 (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

We're all having trouble parsing what he writes. That's one of the problems. At different times he can sometimes be quite lucid; at other times it's totally incomprehensible. A while ago the same user started a discussion about what he called "cognitive conscientious implications" in the British Constitution: you can see for yourself how that went. I'm the anonymous IP opposing his current edits (along with User:North Shoreman, User:Brunton, User:Francis Davey, User:Whizz40, and historically User:Theroadislong and User:GrindtXX) 2.221.113.177 (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

You're method more closely examined... is that you revert to wrong-fully created edits by yourself, someone else or me once they've been corrected (slandering me at times in the history section) in hope that someone will revert to an even older edit at the possibility that they may assume that I'm at fault or are unwilling to check the source. Sure, I haven't been correct all of the time but I try to improve the articles where more difficult subjects arise... your revert just now on political custom has done just that. All sentences were copied from a different website on the new revision and the source is contributed as it is a judgment that was later incorporated as a convention (examples of it are filled in conventions by countries, and you're not someone willing to dispute). - The bailii link is original research (or atleast alone, I had been leaving it in hoping you would stop but you continued. - Which is why I come to the position that you're sabotaging edits.) By me reverting your reversions (without explanation, which is typical of you), you of-course set me up to look like someone wanting an edit war. No constructive criticism either to the edits, you may have actually noticed that I take on board what others say or not. 90.219.180.23 (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that;

1. The significance of his remark; Grey, orbiter dicta can be point of reference in future court-cases by anyone and a reference point for any government department involved when making a constitutional amendment (Used - for, or against, sometimes backed up with reasons why or why not).

2. - Sitting on the question for moment -

3. Parliamentary Sovereignty and Slade's Orbiter dictum present opposite terms, if they were debated, it would be comparable to (within the systematic sense) a democracy vs republic debate. (Similar also to an Athenian society vs Spartan society etc but modernised with all the industrialist ideas... It's arguable that society meets a middle-ground on the topic which is generally difficult to define. The Athenians didn't give women equal rights within their society, the term "Draconian" derives from an Athenian ruler and plagues were prominent at the time of Socrates in his later life, however they were comparably better educated after him against the Spartans... whereas Spartans were ruthless with other settlements and were very "Survival of the fittest" oriented but valued their freewill greatly.)

4. certain specified consents - I'm starting to think is a shortening for; "offer, acceptance and consideration". Although I did previously believe it was for specific scenarios, ie; if someone has committed fraud beyond reasonable doubt, - slade may have not been including for their consent to be addressed. Perhaps it's both of these. 90.219.180.23 (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

"The significance of his remark; Grey, orbiter dicta can be point of reference in future court-cases by anyone and a reference point for any government department involved when making a constitutional amendment". That's a statement about the significance of obiter dicta in general - has this particular comment been used in this way? Is it discussed in any constitutional law textbooks, other than the one calling it a tiny judicial hint? That's the sort of source you need. Please provide references, including page or paragraph numbers. Brunton (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Title of article change; Constitution of the... United Kingdom -> United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The title conveys part of the official name of the British nation... I mean, it's abit far fetched but detail is detail... Britain is not the only country that has carries a "United Kingdom" ever... A reference to the usage of " The United Kingdom of Israel" is one example. I propose we change the name to this. Please put in favour if you can see that the difference would help for general clarity. OR Constitution of the United Kingdom of Britain (as this includes N. Ireland according to some research.) 94.15.239.239 (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Update after some more research; The 3 choices appear to be for best clarity;

1. Constitution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 2. Constitution of the United Kingdom of Britain 3. Constitution of the United Kingdom of British subjects

According to a source... the 3rd is cited to be the most accurate description.

See; "British" and "Britain" section in link;

http://alt-usage-english.org/whatistheuk.html

94.15.239.239 (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, this belongs here. Almost nobody is expecting to find an article about the constitution of ancient Israel, or indeed the United Kingdom of the Netherlands or any other UK under this heading. —Nizolan ^(talk) 06:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Meenmore Edits

Even w/o getting into the substance of his/her changes, obviously the way they were added (i.e simply tacking on a few paragraphs ahead of the existing lead, including a nine line quote in the lead with a smaller font) is a clear violation of acceptable editing policies. I've issued a 3RR warning and opened this discussion to provide our new editor with an opportunity to talk this out. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

If my entries were done contrary to already accepted standards I concede my fault and accept the correct procedure is to undo my contribution. However, the reason given was that my entry was inconsistent with the lead paragraph. No detailed explanation was given but a vague one with no substance. I also take great objection to the fact the Magna Carta a particle of the Constitution of England is given precedence within the timeline of the Constitution of the UNITED KINGDOM. A particle of the Constitution of Scotland the Declaration of Arbroath a similar document is not issued the same privilege nor is the Scottish Claim of Right given the same privilege as its counterpart the English Bill of Rights. The United Kingdom of Great Britain was founded in 1707. How the Magna Carta a document created in 1215 is related to the Constitution of United Kingdom a state created in 1707 is completely beyond the realms of reason and logic. Meenmore (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The inclusion of the Magna Carta is sourced to a reliable source (a 2004 report by a Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the House of Lord) whereas your position is not. Do you have sources that say or imply that the Magna Carta or English Bill of Rights have nothing to do with the British constitution?

The biggest contradiction between your language and the existing language in the lead is your claim that "The Articles of Union also known as the Treaty of Union is the legal constitution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain." The existing lead says:

"The UK does not have one specific constitutional document. Instead the constitution is found within a variety of written and some unwritten sources. This is sometimes referred to as an "unwritten" or uncodified constitution.[1][2] The British constitution primarily draws from four sources: statute law (laws passed by the legislature), common law (laws established through court judgments), parliamentary conventions, and works of authority".

The two different claims are not compatible and the existing language is totally supported by the body of the article Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I am a Scotsman. The Magna Carta was annulled by the Pope, it is nothing more than a peace treaty between English persons and their English King. If the Magna Carta still had legal force its territorial extent would be England. The United Kingdom was founded in 1707.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10807.htm

_{In his Short Commentary on the Law of Scotland (W. Green & Son, 1962), p. 55 Professor Smith proposed the following analysis of the documents by which the Union Agreement was constituted which encapsulates Mr. Keen' argument:}

"First, they constituted a treaty in international law between two sovereign states—the treaty being concluded not by the Parliaments, which did not exercise the prerogative treaty-making powers, but by Anne, Queen of Scotland, with Anne, Queen of England. This treaty, however, was executed on May 1, 1707, and can no longer be invoked qua treaty. Secondly, the respective Acts of the pre-Union Parliaments operated as ordinary legislation binding the subjects within the jurisdictions for which these Parliaments could competently legislate. Thirdly, the Union Agreement took effect as a skeletal, but nonetheless fundamental, written constitution for the new Kingdom of Great Britain when it came into being. Meenmore (talk) 02:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Martin Loughlin in "The British Constitution: A Very Short Introduction" (p. 67) acknowledges that "some Scots jurists" take your position. However he disputes their contention and quotes Dicey as saying that "neither the act of Union with Scotland, nor the Dentists Acts, 1878, has more claim than the other to be considered a supreme law."

It does seem, however, that this position might deserve a paragraph or two somewhere (no long quotes) in the body of the article -- perhaps in the "Theory" section. Drafting such an addition might be a productive use of your time. You might want to propose the language on this discussion page first and obtain consensus to add it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The Union Agreement is the Treaty of Union otherwise known as the Articles of Union. The Parliament of Great Britain did not pass the "Act of Union with Scotland". You do know there are two Acts of Union, the Union with England Act passed by the Parliament of Scotland and the Union with Scotland Act passed by the Parliament of England. It appears you are claiming the Parliament of Scotland was absorbed into the Parliament of England and the only Act relevant to this discussion is the the Union with Scotland Act passed by the Parliament of England, is this the case?

_{Up to the year 1707 there existed an English Parliament sovereign in England, and there existed a Scotch Parliament sovereign in Scotland. These two sovereign bodies in negotiating the Treaty of Union acted with scrupulous, and on the Scotch side with punctilious, independence. Neither sovereign body would consent to be absorbed in the other. What they did agree to was to constitute a new State, namely, the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and each to surrender their separate sovereignty in favour of a new sovereign, namely, the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom. The English Parliament no more became supreme in Scotland than the Scotch Parliament became supreme in England. The old Parliament of each country abdicated and lost its identity in the New Parliament of Great Britain. In theory the Treaty of Union between Great Britain and Ireland bore exactly the same character as the Treaty of Union between England and Scotland. Page 244, England's Case against Home Rule by A.V. Dicey.}

You like Martin Loughlin have completely misunderstood what A.V. Dicey was writing about. The Union with Scotland Act passed by the Parliament of England cannot be considered a supreme law of the Parliament of Great Britain because it was not passed by the Parliament of Great Britain, it was passed by the Parliament of England which A.V. Dicey suggested no longer existed after 1707 according to A.V. Dicey the Parliament of England abdicated and lost its identity in the New Parliament of Great Britain. Meenmore (talk) 03:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

My contribution to 'Constitution of the United Kingdom' has been undone. I would like to know the country of origin of the person who undone my entry.

My contribution is full below.

The United Kingdom was created by statesmen of the Kingdom of Scotland and statesmen of the Kingdom of England in 1707. The Articles of Union also known as the Treaty of Union is the legal constitution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. The law that introduced the constitution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain into the Constitution of Scotland is the Union with England Act and the law that introduced the constitution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain into the Constitution of England is the Union with Scotland Act. Due to the fact the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a state union of three legal sovereign states and jurisdictions (Scotland, Northern Ireland and England & Wales), it does not have the required sovereignty to create a written Constitution.

_{"Up to the year 1707 there existed an English Parliament sovereign in England, and there existed a Scotch Parliament sovereign in Scotland. These two sovereign bodies in negotiating the Treaty of Union acted with scrupulous, and on the Scotch side with punctilious, independence. Neither sovereign body would consent to be absorbed in the other. What they did agree to was to constitute a new State, namely, the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and each to surrender their separate sovereignty in favour of a new sovereign, namely, the sovereign Parliament of the United- Kingdom. The English Parliament no more became supreme in Scotland than the Scotch Parliament became supreme in England. The old Parliament of each country abdicated and lost its identity in the New Parliament of Great Britain. In theory the Treaty of Union between Great Britain and Ireland bore exactly the same character as the Treaty of Union between England and Scotland." Page 244, England's Case against Home Rule by A.V. Dicey.}

Not the way to go if you want to be taken seriously. You can tell from my user page my nationality, but the key point is that there were three of us that reverted you. You need to explain yourself and show you realize that on format alone your edits are messed up. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I am Scottish. It is an insult to myself and my country that this page with its content is assuming the Constitution of England is the Constitution of the United Kingdom. The page has also cited A.V. Dicey on numerous occasions but the content of the page is inconsistent with the works of A.V. Dicey. Meenmore (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I would like to know the country of origin of the other two editors. How you think this is irrelevant is beyond me. It is completely relevant. You are from the United States of America. You will I assume be aware the country of origin of the statesmen who created the Constitution of the United States of America is Scotland the same as the statesmen who created the United Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707. Scottish native James Wilson is said to be one of the two main men who drafted the US Constitution. James Wilson was one of only six men to sign both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. James Wilson was also one of the original six Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. George Washington regarded him as the greatest legal mind he ever encountered and had Wilson educate his nephew on law. Meenmore (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Meemore, I propose we work together on incorporating the points you are raising as a paragraph in the History section. Wikipedia should represent a worldwide perspective on the topic of each article, not just English or Scottish, or Welsh or Northern Irish. I agree the points you are raising are relevant and could improve the article but any content added needs to at least be in the right section (e.g. the History section) and be a relatively complete and well-formatted contribution. All content on Wikipedia needs to have consensus of other editors and represents the incremental contributions of all editors. This approach generally proves to be effective at producing good and improved content - there is background at Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia, in particular Wikipedia:Editing policy. Whizz40 (talk) 07:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Whizz, the content of your entry is understood. I entered as a contribution "The Articles of Union also known as the Treaty of Union is the legal constitution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain." The quoted entry particle is rooted in the bedrock of the opinion of the Select Committee on Privileges found on the official parliament publication website. The link to the opinion is below.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldselect/ldprivi/108i/10807.htm

Lord Hope of Craighead is a Lord (Member) of Parliament and a former Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

The Constitution of Scotland is unwritten and the Constitution of England is unwritten but the constitution of the entity known as the United Kingdom is the Articles of Union. The Articles of Confederation in the American context was a form of constitution. Meenmore (talk) 07:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Meenmore, quoting from Church of Scotland#Position in Scottish society, "Although it is the national church,[53] the Kirk is not a state church;[54][55] this and other regards makes it dissimilar to the Church of England (the established church in England).[53] Under its constitution (recognised by the 1921 act of the British Parliament), the Kirk enjoys complete independence from the state in spiritual matters".

In the history section, the previous list was cited to a source because that is WP:Verifiable. As editors we should be using a WP:Reliable source rather than our own WP:Point of view. I'll move the detail points added to History of the Constitution of the United Kingdom#Key statutes. There is a whole article on the History of the formation of the United Kingdom. Whizz40 (talk) 05:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Whizz, you are dismissing my source. My source is an official statement published on the official website belonging to the Parliament of the United Kingdom (I know you think it is the Parliament of England, but I state with absolute certainty, you will find numerous paragraphs written by A.V. Dicey in his works that confirms it is not). The Articles of Union is the written constitution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, it may not be the written Constitution of England but this page is about the Constitution of the United Kingdom not the Constitution of England. The page appears to be nothing more than a product of American delusion. The page has cited A.V. Dicey numerous times but the body of the article is inconsistent with the works of A.V. Dicey. It appears you have more respect for the Constitution of England than you do the Constitution of Scotland. A very bizarre stance for an American. A.V. Dicey stated on a number of occasions within his works that the Constitution of England is not the Constitution of Scotland, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (now Northern Ireland). You do know, you are a citizen of the United States attempting to correct a citizen of the United Kingdom on the constitution of their state. You are making a mockery of this page. I will no longer be participating on the Constitution of the United Kingdom. The Magna Carta was annulled, and if it still had legal force, it would only have force within one third of the United Kingdom. How can the Magna Carta be a particle of the Constitution of the United Kingdom when it has never been and could never be the law in the other two thirds of the United Kingdom? It is only relevant to England, in the historical sense. Meenmore (talk) 14:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Meenmore, thank you for the complement, I am British though. Please do keep contributing to the discussion and editing the articles because you are raising relevant points however I am not sure your latest change to the article is an improvement. Rather than an edit war of Christmas, can you please consider reverting your change and explaining here why the paragraph I added in the Church of England section does not belong there? Dicey is a WP:Primary source and ideally we should be citing WP:Secondary sources. Whizz40 (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Whizz, as you are aware the term 'British' is a vague detail rooted in the historic Briton known today as the Cymry (Welsh). When the Scottish statesmen and English statesmen founded the new state known today as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1707, they decided to create a common identity, the Britons also known as the Welsh, were neutral and it was for that reason the Scoto-English Empire was named the British Empire. The majority of Scottish people according to the most recent Census of Scotland use their National identity which is Scottish to describe their national identity instead of the minor and secondary unional identity 'British', the majority of the English people according to the most recent Census of England also use their National identity which is English to describe their national identity instead of the minor and secondary unional identity 'British'. It appears you are claiming you are British and the fact you are keen to limit any mention of Scotland within the Constitution of the United Kingdom, I presume you are English, am I correct? Meenmore (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Meenmore, the nationality of editors is irrelevant to the content of the article. All that matters is what the sources say. If your view as an editor is the article on the Constitution of the Untied Kingdom should give the same weight to the Church of Scotland as the Church of England then as an editor you should cite a reliable secondary source which says this. A quick google search for example, this UCL project says "the special position of the Church of England has to be the centre of immediate constitutional attention" and "no-one may succeed to the throne unless they are ‘in communion with’ the Church of England". Whizz40 (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Whizz, the reason why the Church of Scotland should be mentioned in the title of the paragraph is because the Church of Scotland is mentioned a number of times within the paragraph. Again, you are assuming the Constitution of England is the Constitution of the United Kingdom. All my edits on this page regarding the Constitution of the United Kingdom has issued both the Constitution of Scotland and the Constitution of England equal status. I mentioned the establishment of the Kingdom of England as well as the establishment of its older counterpart the Kingdom of Scotland. I included the English Magna Carta as well as the Scottish Declaration of Arbroath, both documents relate to two peoples and their relationships with their respective kings of that era. I also included the English Bill of Rights as well as the Scottish Claim of Right. I also included the English Act of Union known as the Union with Scotland Act as well as the Scottish Act of Union known as the Union with England Act. I give both the Church of Scotland and the Church of England the same status. There is no racially political arrogance or religiously sectarian motives behind my edits. You incorrectly believe only the constitutional history of England is relevant to the Constitution of the United Kingdom. I would like all my edits relating to the history timeline on the Constitution of the United Kingdom reinstated. Meenmore (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Meenmore, while I agree your edits and comments are relevant, I do not believe the changes to the article are improvements. Your edits and comments appear to be pushing your own point of view rather than reflecting due weight from reliable secondary sources you have cited. As your changes are disputed, please try to gain consensus with other editors for your changes on this Talk page before implementing them in the article. There may be other editors who agree with you, if you can bring the views of other editors into the discussion that would help. Whizz40 (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Whizz, can you confirm whether you are an Englishman or not? I am a Scotsman, I have issued both Scotland and England equal status within the Constitution of the United Kingdom. Can you give me a reason why you are disputing the inclusion of Scottish documents in the history section of the page? Meenmore (talk) 10:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Meenmore, all that matters is what sources say. Previously there was a list cited to a source, which helps to ensure a WP:Neutral point of view. Moving away from this list is not an improvement because any other editors can add the particular points he or she thinks are relevant lengthening the already long list and the decision on what to include and what not to include is made with no reference to sources. Whizz40 (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Whizz, it appears you have refused to disclose your nationality. A constitution is about the relationship between citizens and their state, the state in this regard is the United Kingdom which is made up of two countries - Scotland & England, one principality - Wales and one province - Northern Ireland, all four can be described as nations in their own right or in the case of Northern Ireland, a part of a larger nation state. Your source is unsafe. Section 183 of your source confirms it is a speculative source. Speculative sources should not be used within Wikipedia as they cast doubt on the authenticity of the page of which the source is rooted.

"183,... For these purposes, the fundamental parts of constitutional law could be taken to include the following statutes"

The word "could" indicates possibility. Possibilities cannot be used as sources unless there is a statement attached declaring them as possible sources.

A.V. Dicey wrote numerous times within his works that the Constitution of the United Kingdom is ancient because it is rooted in the constitutions of two ancient kingdoms. Because he was an English law barrister and had no legal authority to speak on the Constitution of Scotland, he spoke about the Constitution of England. He advised against the constitution being written down in one document because he believed it should not be made but develop over time.

Your source is not suitable for the history section of the page. My contribution is entered to give a full comprehensive historical summary of the history of the Constitution of the United Kingdom from all three jurisdictions of the United Kingdom not just one. The Magna Carta cannot be considered a current fundamental particle of the Constitution of the United Kingdom because it explicitly states Scotland as being a foreign jurisdiction. Scotland, England and Wales, and Northern Ireland are the three domestic jurisdictions of the United Kingdom. The Treaty of Union as well as Union with England Act stops England from being considered a foreign state to Scotland; Union with Scotland Act stops Scotland from being considered a foreign state to England; Union with Ireland Act relates to Northern Ireland. Meenmore (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Meenmore, as discussed above moving to an unsourced list has a number of disadvantages. If you have a source verifying your changes and additions to the article reflect due weight in reliable secondary sources we can discuss the relative merits of different sources. Without this, the discussion here does not substantiate your changes as improvements to the article. Whizz40 (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Whizz, the opinion of 2004 Committee entry may be suitable elsewhere, I suggest the theory section as its content is not suitable for history section. The history section should contain historical content. I will again remind you the Constitution of England is not the Constitution of the United Kingdom. The history section should include the constitutional history of all three jurisdictions of the United Kingdom not just England. The Magna Carta has no legal effect in Scotland or Northern Ireland nor does the English Bill of Rights and the Union with Scotland Act is only valid when in conjunction with the Union with England Act.

Can you give me a reason why you are still disputing the inclusion of Scottish documents in the history section of the page? Meenmore (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

We have a source listing specific acts as part of the unwritten constitution -- it is a perfectly reliable source. If you want to add to the list, provide sources that SPECIFICALLY say they should be included on the such a list. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Shoreman, source is not relevant to the history section of page. The section heading SPECIFICALLY states HISTORY. My source covers history. There appears to be an anti-Scottish agenda. Is it the case English documents like the English Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, and the English Union with Scotland Act are all permitted in the history section of the CONSITUTION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM and any inclusion of Scottish documents like the Scottish Declaration of Arbroath, the Scottish Claim of Right and the Scottish Union with England Act are forbidden? The source previously attached to the HISTORY section contains no historical content. The source is rooted in the opinion of an unelected chamber of parliament regarding what documents COULD be fundamental parts of constitutional law. It is a speculative source which has no relevance to the section it is meant to be a source for.

Can you also address:

The Union Agreement is the Treaty of Union otherwise known as the Articles of Union. The Parliament of Great Britain did not pass the "Act of Union with Scotland". You do know there are two Acts of Union, the Union with England Act passed by the Parliament of Scotland and the Union with Scotland Act passed by the Parliament of England. It appears you are claiming the Parliament of Scotland was absorbed into the Parliament of England and the only Act relevant to this discussion is the the Union with Scotland Act passed by the Parliament of England, is this the case?

I will remind you that this page is about the Constitution of the United Kingdom which has three jurisdictions. The histories of all three jurisdictions should covered in the history section. Read the source I entered unlike the previous source that source contains historical content.

Meenmore (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Meenmore, there is no issue with adding Scottish documents. The issue is with the quality of your changes to the article. You removed a source, added an irrelevant source and created a list that mixes statutes with ancient laws/declarations, and estimated dates for the founding of early kingdoms. See WP:Indiscriminate. These are not improvements.

Your new section in the article which states "The Magna Carta is incorrectly referred to as the bedrock of the 'British' constitution" is out of context. That claim is not made in the article, in any case a statement like this requires multiples sources, see WP:Exceptional. Your section "Fundamental Constitutional Law" is unnecessary because the two Acts you state, the Claim of Right Act 1689 and the Acts of Union 1707, are included in the History section as it is currently written, which is an acceptable summary of the source. Let's move on to another point. Whizz40 (talk) 07:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Whizz, due to the fact you have failed to disclose what part of the United Kingdom you originate, I assume you are an Englishman. Because Scotsmen know the Magna Carta has no legal effect in Scotland; this means legally, politically and in reality the document is confined to one third of the United Kingdom, therefore it is not United Kingdom wide and it has no place within the history section of the constitutional history of the United Kingdom unless similar documents from Scotland are included. I will remind you once again this page is about the Constitution of the UNITED KINGDOM and is not about the Constitution of England. You have undid all my edits claiming none of them are improvements. You have dismissed the official parliament published source from Lord Hope, a former justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. I dismissed the 2003 Joint Committee as speculative sources cannot be used as reliable sources.

There appears to be an anti-Scottish agenda regarding this page. You have also stated using the exact content from other Wikipedia pages such Kingdom of Scotland and Kingdom of England pages are also not improvements. The official source I used from the official UK Government website states the two kingdoms which were united in 1707 came about before the 11th century. You appear to be an Englishman who incorrectly thinks the Constitution of England is the Constitution of the UNITED KINGDOM and any edits or contributions that is not from an Englishman from England or elsewhere are considered not improvements. Two things can occur as this dispute will need to end soon, firstly, we only use historical information relevant to the United Kingdom which was formed in 1707, the only acts relevant prior to the creation of the state is the acts that are actually mentioned within the Union legislation. The Scottish Claim of Right Act is mentioned and an English counterpart relating to the English Bill of Rights is also mentioned. The Magna Carta a peace treaty is not an actual act of parliament but if it was an act of parliament because it states Scotland as a foreign state it would be one of the laws declared void by the passing of the Union legislation. The Union legislation explicitly states any laws inconsistent with it are to be declared void. The Magna Carta is inconsistent with Union legislation. Or secondary we include the constitutional history of all three jurisdictions of the United Kingdom.

The Union of the Crowns would be the only suitable historical constitutional starting point anything prior to that should be dismissed. If we are to dismiss all documents relating to the Kingdom of Scotland prior to 1603 equally we are to dismiss all documents relating to the Kingdom of England. Meenmore (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Meenmore, History of the Constitution of the United Kingdom has been expanded from the Kingdom of Scotland article, which is not always in agreement with the assertions you are making here. Please take a moment to read through these additions. Given this, please do not reinsert your changes to this article without further discussion here that leads to consensus based on sources. Whizz40 (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Meenmore, the issues of accuracy and due weight in your edits have not been resolved:

• • The dates of founding of the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England are too detailed to be included in this article. Besides, the Kingdom of Scotland article notes 843 is the "traditional" date for the founding, around the time of "the rise of Cínaed mac Ailpín (Kenneth MacAlpin) as "king of the Picts" in the 840s (traditionally dated to 843)", but does not agree with your addition in this article that Máel Coluim I (who reigned c. 943–954) founded the Kingdom in 843.
  • The Declaration of Arbroath is not mentioned in the Kingdom of Scotland article. The articles are written in WP:Summary style and in this case the more detailed article on this topic does not discuss the Declaration of Arbroath. Leges inter Brettos et Scottos is mentioned at Kingdom of Scotland#Law because it "set out a system of compensation for injury and death based on ranks and the solidarity of kin groups". While these are important documents in Scottish history, we would need sources which explain their importance to the constitutional history of the United Kingdom - so far you have provided none.
  • In contrast, Magna Carta entered the statute books in 1297, three clauses remain in statute, and it is often discussed prominently in relation to the constitution of the United Kingdom. See for example [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
  • Some sources do discuss the views you are putting forward, see for example [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] but these sources do not support these views as mainstream, and as already discussed above there are a number of disadvantages to moving to an unsourced list, so if you can propose a source for your list or write a summary of the history of the constitution of the United Kingdom in prose, with sources, then we can have a constructive discussion about how to improve this article. More detailed discussion of different traditions and schools of thought can be added to History of the Constitution of the United Kingdom.
  • The Kingdom of Scotland article itself also states there was more influence from the English tradition that the Scottish. An article written from a neutral point of view should reflect this.
    • "The Privy Council of Scotland ...remained central to the administration of the government, even after the departure of the Stuart monarchs to rule in England from 1603. However, was often sidelined and was abolished after the Acts of Union 1707, with rule direct from London."
    • "The Parliament of Scotland also emerged as a major legal institution, gaining an oversight of taxation and policy. In the early modern era, Parliament was also vital to the running of the country, providing laws and taxation, but it had fluctuating fortunes and was never as central to the national life as its counterpart in England."
    • "The English and Scottish parliaments were replaced by a combined Parliament of Great Britain, but it sat in Westminster and largely continued English traditions without interruption." Whizz40 (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Scots Law was influenced by several European legal systems hence why it is a hybrid system of feudal, civil and common law. Scotland and Denmark are the oldest kingdoms in Europe and of course both kingdoms have at some point in history had the kingdom of England as its vassal kingdom. The three lions of Denmark is the coat of arms of England and the Scottish constitutional framework of limited parliament and limited monarchy is now the constitutional framework of England albeit via the United Kingdom.

The fact you have mentioned the Privy Council of Scotland believing it is relevant to this discussion shows your complete misunderstanding of the current situation. I will address this point as a matter of respect as normally I would not have dignified it with a response.

The Scottish constitutional framework of limited monarchy means the powers of the monarchy is limited. When the Kingdom of Scotland took control of the Kingdom of England in 1603, the Kingdom of England became a vassal kingdom of the Kingdom of Scotland when Scottish constitutional law was extended to England. At that point Scotland had displaced a number of monarchs the then most recent case was the removal of Mary, Queen of Scots in favour of her son James the Sixth. Before the Scottish Royal annexation of England, the English believed in the divine right of kings, the Scots have never accepted the supremacy of kings or parliament. A couple of decades later the Scots handed Charles the First over to the English and because he had became a rogue king, the Scots ordered the English to enforce Scottish constitutional law in which they the English duly did. The Scots previously ordered the English to enforce Scottish constitutional law regarding one of their own Scottish monarchs but this was the first time in modern English history that the English enforced Scottish constitutional law regarding one of their own English [Kingdom of England] kings.

The Privy Council of Scotland and the Privy Council of England were both abolished when the Privy Council of Great Britain was created. You are in complete denial one of the worst cases I have encountered. You cannot accept both Scotland and England entered a union and created a United Kingdom called Great Britain. Does it comfort you to delude yourself into thinking Scotland was annexed by England then England changed its name to Great Britain? Meenmore (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Meenmore, your comments above do not address the issues of accuracy and due weight in your previous edits. Your latest edit is to remove the entire History section with the edit summary "No consensus for either historical timeline, removed it in its entirety until proper consensus. Magna Carta caused major problem." Consensus is based on evaluating editors' argument based on Wikipedia policies and reference to reliable sources. Opposition or disagreement from one or more editors that is argued without reference to sources or policies does not override the WP:Community consensus. See in particularly WP:NOCONSENSUS which states "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." and WP:RFCEND which states "The outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies." As discussed above at length, the onus is on you to make the case for your changes. Whizz40 (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Whizz, you have dismissed official UK Government documents published on the official UK Government website, you have also dismissed a source rooted in Lord Hope, a Lord (Member) of Parliament and former justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. You appear to be anti-Scottish, any source which is from a Scottish person you dismiss it. It also appears only sources from England or English persons is given weight on this page. Your sidekick Tom (North Shoreman) was open and unreserved in his anti-Scottish stance when he issued the following statement:

_{"Martin Loughlin in "The British Constitution: A Very Short Introduction" (p. 67) acknowledges that "some Scots jurists" take your position. However he disputes their contention and quotes Dicey as saying that "neither the act of Union with Scotland, nor the Dentists Acts, 1878, has more claim than the other to be considered a supreme law." It does seem, however, that this position might deserve a paragraph or two somewhere (no long quotes) in the body of the article -- perhaps in the "Theory" section. Drafting such an addition might be a productive use of your time. You might want to propose the language on this discussion page first and obtain consensus to add it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)"}

Scots jurists are more advanced than their English counterparts due to the fact Scots Law is older and more advanced. Scots jurists are disciplined in the art of international law whereas English jurists have always appeared to believe English law is international law. I would like to address the claim and statement of Tom (North Shoreman). If my assertion is true and you are an Englishman, then due to the fact Tom like you is also governed by the law of the Englishman, both of your opinions, cannot, in my opinion, be independent of each other. Two men governed by the law of the Englishman are two men governed by the law of the Englishman.

English jurists have long claimed that the Union with Scotland Act is only another Act of Parliament that can be repealed at any time, and on repeal the Union state created in 1707 would be dissolved, Scots jurists however take a different stance. Professor Crawford, a New Zealander (New Zealand like America is also governed by the law of the Englishman) at the University of Cambridge stated that the Acts of Union as a matter of international law cannot be repealed. The UK Government asked for his advice regarding Scottish independence and whether Scotland would be dissolving the Union founded in 1707 or would Scotland be in fact seceding from the exact Union it created with England in 1707. He was asked for a perspective regarding Scotland and not England and it was cleverly issued. He said within his published advice that as a matter of international law, in his opinion, Scotland could be treated as seceding from the exact Union it created with England in 1707 and it can be possible that Scotland will not as a matter of international law be dissolving the Union.

Scots jurists have time and time again attempted to remind English jurists that the Treaty of Union is a treaty in international law and it created a new state. Professor Crawford stated within his advice the union could be treated as Scotland joining England then England changing its name to Great Britain but he intelligently omitted to state it could be equally treated as England joining Scotland then Scotland changing its name to Great Britain. He did not address the English question as he stated within his works he was only asked the Scottish question but following logic the same advice would apply if the circumstances were reversed. I would like you and your sidekick Tom to address the advice from Professor Crawford when he stated as a matter of international law, the Parliament of the United Kingdom cannot repeal the Union with Scotland Act. Please note Crawford is from New Zealand another English colony and Professor Boyle, who assisted Crawford, from Northern Ireland is also governed by the law of the Englishman. America, England, New Zealand and Northern Ireland all four governed by the law of the Englishman whereas Scotland the oldest of the five is governed by the law of the Scotsman! Meenmore (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Meenmore, any editors can contribute to the discussion, and please note this is not a WP:forum for discussing the Constitution of the United Kingdom, only for improving this and related articles. Some of the points you raised do not need to be discussed because they are not controversial and are supported by sources so they can simply be added to the article in an appropriate way. A lot of your points are quite detailed and may be better incorporated in History of the Constitution of the United Kingdom and summarised in this article. Viewpoints should also be put in context, so that the article is clear to readers. For example quoting from the sources I listed above:

• "The separate constitutional and rights structures of England and Scotland prior to the Treaty of Union in 1707 create different strands of constitutionality. For example Magna Carta (1215) does not apply in Scotland nor does the Petition of Right of 1628 or the Bill of Rights of 1689. The corresponding Scottish Documents could be said to be the Declaration of Arbroath (1320) and the Claim of Right (1689). However, as these documents are limited to Scotland in their effect in much the same way as Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights are limited to England, our contention is that analysing British rights emanates, at the very best, from the Treaty of Union in 1707 and probably more properly from 1801. Even then there are rights which reach from before 1707 and apply in each jurisdiction separately, and there are rights which have been enacted since then which are limited to one jurisdiction of the other. For example, “the right to trial by jury” to which we have referred above." Law Society of Scotland [14] [15]
• "We reaffirmed a theme that runs through Scottish history—from the Declaration of Arbroath to the two previous Claims of Right of 1689 and 1842, both of which were in different ways a rejection of the Crown’s or Parliament’s right to impose on Scotland. Lord President Cooper, probably the greatest Scottish lawyer of the last century, said “The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law.”" Written evidence submitted by Canon Kenyon Wright CBE [16] [17]
• "In January 2013, Alex Salmond explicitly tied claims of Scottish popular sovereignty to a critique of the United Kingdom's constitutional practices. Citing the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath and the 1689 Claim of Right as evidence of a 'centuries' old and 'distinct' constitutional Scottish practice, ... What often goes unnoticed, however, is how far Nationalist politicians have employed the very constitutional flexibility they deride to promote their political ambitions within the United Kingdom since 1998." The Scottish Independence Referendum: Constitutional and Political Implications [18]
• "What historians must do is ensure such ambivalence is never allowed to become a vehicle for anti-Enligsh sentiments, and here ignorance is as much a danger as bad history. The Union of 1707 was not brought about by English invasion as thirty-seven percent of Scottish school children appear to believe. When a historian can publicly argue 'the Anglo-Scottish ruling class' have for centuries been engaged in 'falsifying actual sottish history since 1707' it is unsurprising to find politicians hijacking the subject (Both the then Conservative secretary of state and the leader of the Scottish Nationalist party attempted to exploit the Declaration of Arbroath.) What must be avoided therefore is a debased and popular Little Scotlander history in which 'we' figures largely in the telling of folk tales." Keith M. Brown bio The New British History: Founding a Modern State, 1603-1715 [19]
• "The work contends that the Arbroath Declaration (1320) and its philosophy was the intellectual foundation of the American Revolution and Declaration of Independence (1776). After showing the Scottish influence on the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the new Federal government, the Braudelian-style work traces the development of Scottish-style freedom and human rights through the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen influenced by Jefferson, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address that transformed Jefferson's Declaration, and Eleanor Roosevelt's role in creating the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the foundation of the modern human rights struggle. More information about this book is available at the authors website www.braveheartsoul.com" The Scottish Invention of America, Democracy and Human Rights [20] [21]

The difference between Magna Carta and the Declaration of Arbroath is the former is discussed prominently by the vast majority of British and international reliable sources in relation to the constitution of the United Kingdom and is a mainstream view while the latter is mainly discussed by Scottish Nationalists. An article written with WP:due weight from a WP:Neutral point of view needs to reflect this. Whizz40 (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The difference between the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Arbroath is that the former was annulled by the Pope shortly after it was produced whereas the Papal Bull was never removed from the latter. To understand the Papal Bull we must understand the context of international relations of that era. An English person with a British passport going around the world telling people in the Commonwealth that the Magna Carta is the fundamental part of the Constitution of the United Kingdom means nothing to this Scottish person and a good majority of Scottish persons.

The Declaration of Arbroath is legally binding in the Scottish Constitution of the United Kingdom. No Government of the United Kingdom can legally block a referendum on Scottish independence using an English parliamentary majority. It goes without saying as the precedent is there. See MacCormick v Lord Advocate. Please note Lord Cooper was a known Scottish Unionist and not a Scottish Nationalist but he had to state the law [Scots Law] with his opinion based on the law of the land [Scotland] and not with his own personal unionist opinion.

The international recognition of the document has been renowned since 1320 and the recent examples are from the US Senate and the United Nations.

_{"US Senate Resolution 155 of 10 November 1997 states that the Declaration of Arbroath, the Scottish Declaration of Independence, was signed on April 6, 1320 and the American Declaration of Independence was modeled on that inspirational document" - Declaration of Arbroath}

If an English parliamentary majority attempts to block a referendum on Scottish independence, the Declaration of Arbroath will be enforced as a fundamental constitutional document in the Scottish Courts regardless of whether the judges are Nationalists or Unionists whereas the Magna Carta will still be annulled. Meenmore (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The article text is well cited and extensively discussed above with reference to sources and policy. No sources have been provided to support your view that the sources in the article so not represent mainstteam views about the Constitution of the United Kingdom. I have made additions to the article to reflect your views expressed above were I found sources to support this. Wikipedia is collaborative and articles are improved by working together with orher editors. The differences between Wikipedia and social media is we emgage with people who hold dofferent views to our own and collaborate with them to reach a compromise. [22] Whizz40 (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the history section should reflect the constitutional history of all three jurisdictions of the United Kingdom. Magna Carta is not a common UK statute therefore it has no place within the history of the Constitution of the United Kingdom. The view that the Magna Carta is a historical UK wide statute is only found in England by some English persons. I have found evidence from Lord Sumption, an English judge of English law at the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom who also dismisses the Magna Carta here https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-150611.pdf

Magna Carta is a document for 1215, and not for all time. And it is a document for Englishmen, not for humanity. Indeed, it is not even a document for all Englishmen but only for the small minority who were free, male and relatively rich.

Lord Sumption also states the current form of English constitutional law dates from the 1600s and the Magna Carta has nothing to do with the English Constitution when he stated the following statement:-

Our libertarian tradition actually dates from the constitutional settlement which followed the civil wars of the seventeenth century and the deposition of King James II in 1688. Magna Carta frankly has nothing to do with it.

Both statements from Lord Sumption are found within the document cited above published by the official UK Supreme Court website.

Whizz, with no disrespect intended but you are embarrassing yourself by keep insisting that the Magna Carta should be acknowledged in the history of the Constitution of the United Kingdom when senior English judges at the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom roundly dismiss the Magna Carta and exclude it from the Constitution of England. Meenmore (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Magna Carta entered statute in 1297. Parts of it remain in statute and it is often discussed prominently by reliable sources in relation to the constitution of the United Kingdom. The speech by Sumption does not invalidate that because no claim is made in the article contrary to what Sumption is saying.

In regards your latest edit I clarified and cited that no statutes are entrenched, except the European Communities Act 1972 is arguably “semi-entrenched” because for as long as the UK remains a member of European Union that Act cannot be repealed, and added the statement from your edit summary which requires a citation and two Scottish statutes – the College of Justice Act and the Claim of Right Act 1689 – which can never be repealed or in the case of the Claim of Right Act even altered.. Whizz40 (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Read the Union with England Act, it explicitly states the Claim of Right Act cannot be repealed or altered. The doctrine of unlimited parliamentary sovereignty does not exist in the Constitution of the United Kingdom. Pre-1707, 'unlimited parliamentary sovereignty' did not exist in the law of Scotland or the law of England, and it absolutely does not exist in Scottish Constitutional Law. Post-1707, the Constitutions of Scotland and England have been the same, how English law could develop ' unlimited parliamentary sovereignty'is not logically possible or legally possible. Meenmore (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, refined the article text. Let's keep the discussion and editing constructive. Whizz40 (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Legal jurisdictions

Lady Hale is the Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, she gave oral evidence to the Constitution Committee at the Parliament of the United Kingdom. (See Page 10) Meenmore (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Where there is more than one description/point of view in reliable sources, wikipedia should not push one over the over except with due weight per secondary and tertiary sources (one primary source is not appropriate however relaible). Where possible, it is better to avoid being specific where not essential. Whizz40 (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

User:1989 Can you please provide a third party opinion? I slightly altered the description from regional judicial systems to national judicial systems. The Constitution Committee of the United Kingdom Parliament tend to avoid calling the national courts and the national legal systems within the United Kingdom regional. However, Whizz40 and his sidekick appears to be pushing the agenda that the United Kingdom is a union of regions instead of a union of nations. I have to note Whizz40 roundly dismisses constitutional related sources rooted in the opinions of former and current Justices of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. I believe the opinions of those who sit on the constitutional court of the United Kingdom carry more weight than his agenda. Meenmore (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The time to solicit support would have been before you resumed your edit warring. You have been on this site long enough to verify for yourrself that we don't write articles based on our own interpretations of primary sources (i.e. court decisions). In months of discussions over a series of articles you have failed to secure any other editor to agree with your arguments or your tactics. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Notice to seek consensus for a complete revision and updated article for the Constitution of the United Kingdom.

I am writing to seek consensus for an updated and consistent article for the UK constitution page. The current article, in my opinion, is substandard. One section incorrectly suggests Scotland and England are regions of the United Kingdom then another section of the article confirms they are nations with their own national churches. I believe certain editors seem to push the agenda that only England is important within the article and any mentioning of the other nations of the United Kingdom should be limited.

I suggest all editors who wish to partake in the creation of the updated and consistent article should read the Select Committee on the Constitution report 'The Union and devolution' regarding the UK union of nations published in May 2016. Meenmore (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

If you are sincere about attempting to achieve consensus, you should return the article to the existing status quo before you started your most recent edit warring. Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is a good guideline. Your current policy seems to be to revert repeatedly while ignoring the need to achieve consensus. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

(United) Kingdom of Great Britain

The Kingdom of Great Britain was not known as the United Kingdom until it incorporated Ireland. It had been called a union of course, but "United Kingdom of Great Britain" is not a standard term for the 1707–1801 state. —Guanaco 16:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The 1707 Treaty of Union and the Scottish and English Acts of Union which created the United Kingdom of Great Britain referred to the United Kingdom of Great Britain as the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Adam Smith, the well renowned Scottish jurist, economist and philosopher referred to Great Britain as the United Kingdom within his works. A.V. Dicey the well known constitutionalist and English jurist stated on a number of times within his works the state created in 1707 was the United Kingdom of Great Britain. The Supreme Court of Scotland when interpreting cases relating to the 1707 Union refer to Great Britain as the United Kingdom of Great Britain. The United States of America when it gained its independence referred to Great Britain as the State of Great Britain. Can you please provide sources to back up your claim that the United Kingdom of Great Britain was exclusively referred to as the 'Kingdom of Great Britain'? Meenmore (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@North Shoreman: This is where you come in, or offer an alternative argument. —Guanaco 16:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I reverted this as part of another revert. In this case, the name change was apparently correct but no explanation for the change was offered by Meenmore. Isn't your "This is where you come in" a bit bitchy -- especially coming from someone apparently trying to tone things down? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Northshoreman, the content dispute regarding my United Kingdom of Great Britain alteration is between myself and you. Guanaco, in my opinion, introduced the 'Kingdom of Great Britain' article to the discussion to balance the 'scale'. I am of the opinion Guanaco has to be impartial and has to be seen to be impartial. Now, can you please provide sources to back up your claim that the United Kingdom of Great Britain was exclusively referred to as the 'Kingdom of Great Britain'? Meenmore (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Tell the truth. Nowhere have I said anything about "exclusively referred to", have I? The article title restored by Guanaco is consistent with the title of the article about the subject. Wikipedia articles use the most common name for a subject whenever feasible. It is inappropriate to use a different name in a related article. If you want to argue that your preffered name is more common, then the place to pursue that is at the Kingdom of Great Britain article, not here. Including Guanaco, this now makes three people who agree with the now existing text. Are you going to revert Guanaco now? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I already did. Northshoreman my contributions are general and are not directed at anyone directly. Even the article mentioned is misleading. One only needs to examine the Scottish and English Acts of Union legislation on the official United Kingdom Government website (legislation.gov.uk) to find the 'Kingdom of Great Britain' title conflicts with the relevant legislation relating to the creation of the state. The United Kingdom of Great Britain is still a kingdom and the kingdom of Great Britain is still a United Kingdom. However, republics tended to refer to Great Britain as the State of Great Britain. The legislation that created the United Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707 mentioned United Kingdom over twenty five (25) times whereas Great Britain within the 1707 Acts of Union was mentioned under five (5) times. I find it remarkable an article relating to the United Kingdom of Great Britain completely ignores the content of the documents that created the entity the article is about when naming the title of the article Meenmore (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

You still are having truth problems. You claim your "contributions are general and are not directed at anyone directly", but you made it personal when you addressed your previous response to "Northshoreman" and further stated that your "alteration is between myself and you." And you still are non-responsive to the actual issue. The facts:

1. The main article on he political entity in question is the Kingdom of Great Britain.

2. Articles are titled based on what they are most commonly called -- see Wikipedia:Article titles. In this case, there is a consensus that has been confirmed several times over the years for maintaining the article name as is.

3. Your disbelief notwithstanding, the place to debate a change to how we characterize this political entity is at the main article -- not here. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The United Kingdom of Great Britain is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain. The updated and consistent article of the Constitution of the United Kingdom page will use terms and phrases that are found within the sources. If a source explicitly states that the United Kingdom of Great Britain will be represented by the one and the same parliament then the United Kingdom of Great Britain will be used. If a source states that the new seal of the Union State is called the Great Seal of the United Kingdom then the Great Seal of the United Kingdom will be called the Great Seal of the United Kingdom.

I think we should update the article in stages, for an example, the lead paragraph the first stage and so on. Do you have any objections to the current lead paragraph? Meenmore (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

National courts

In an edit summary Meenmore stated the following:

Lady Hale, Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom referred to the Scottish, English & Welsh and Northern Irish courts as "National courts", when she gave evidence to the UK Parliament in March. The UK is a union!

This seems like a valid argument for labeling these as national courts. If you disagree, please discuss. —Guanaco 16:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a single reference used in one sentence in a very long PRIMARY source. Nowhere in the document is there an attempt to explain what this reference means or what Lady Hale's intention is using the phrase was. You seriously find this to be adequate sourcing?

From a wikipedia reader's standpoint, does the addition of the word "national" w/o any other clarification add anything to the article? We already identify the three geographical areas that have separate court systems. If the existing nature of these geographical areas needs to be clarified, the way to do it is not by throwing in a word w/o any clarification. We do have an actual article that is relevant (Judiciaries of the United Kingdom) and its opening sentence ("The judiciary of the United Kingdom are the separate judiciaries of the three legal systems in England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland") is consistent with the version that Meenmore has repeatedly reverted.

The appropriate move at this point would be to restore the status quo and obtain consensus. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I haven't considered the adequacy of the source, beyond that it amounts to something. I leave it to Meenmore and others to defend it. My only goal here is to transition from edit war to civil discussion. —Guanaco 16:44, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

In light of all the discussion that has gone on here and other articles where Meenmore has edited, perhaps you could be of service by explaining for Meenmore the proper use of sources -- he/she doesn't want to hear it from anybody else. I'm not sure how you can conclude something "seems like a valid argument" when the best you can say for the source used is that it is at least "something". Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I shall explain my motive for my alteration. Before my alteration the section of the article referred to the legal systems as 'regional' legal systems. As a matter of United Kingdom constitutional law, the only areas within the United Kingdom that are referred to as regions are the nine regions of England. Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales are referred to as nations by the Constitutional Committees. The legislature in Wales is called within the constitutional order of the United Kingdom, the National Assembly for Wales. Even though the nations of England and Wales share the same legal system, England and Wales are still nations in their own right. The legal system of Scotland is older than the United Kingdom. The Supreme Court of Scotland also known as the Court of Session is 500 years old whereas the United Kingdom Parliament is only 300 years old. The suggestion that the national legal system of Scotland became a regional legal system is a nonsense with no source or evidence to back it up. Meenmore (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Non-responsive. In fact, with this edit [23] Whiz40 offered a compromise that said neither "national" or "regional". Likewise, my edit [24] did not add "regional" back either. In other words, there is no dispute about leaving out "regional".

Wizz40 and I both mentioned the inadequacy of your source to the addition of "national". You have failed to either address the relevance of your proposed addition or show that reliable secondary sources generally refer to these separate systems as "national". The article Judiciaries of the United Kingdom is most relevant to our discussion and it treats the subject consistently with the way we have proposed to keep the article. You are the one who wants to add a label -- the burden is on you to provide sourcing justifying this labelling. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

You replied to comments in the section above, yet failed to respond here. Can we now assume you are ready to accept Wizz40's compromise? Or are you finally taking the time to review Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources or Wikipedia:No original research (especially WP:PRIMARY)? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The Scottish legal system is the national legal system of Scotland. I do not see why there should be any objections to the national legal system of Scotland being known as the national legal system of Scotland. We will discuss that topic when we reach that section. Meenmore (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

England and Wales are not a single nation but have one legal system. We can simply call them three legal jurisdictions, no need to go into the regional vs national debate detail here when it is not essential. Other articles can cover the detail. I will restore neutral wording which is ehat my earlier edit did [25]. Whizz40 (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

What about the United Kingdom of Great Britain being incorrectly referred to as the Kingdom of Great Britain? I do not think it is relevant to discuss the legal systems at this point. I think we should tidy up this talkpage and archive the (United) Kingdom of Great Britain and National courts sections. Do you have any objections to the lead paragraph? I recommend we update the article in stages. Meenmore (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I have often found, even when I find articles which appear to me to have insurmountable issues, in the end it comes down to small incremental improvements, carefully thought through and well-sourced, being needed, rather a complete revision and update. Whizz40 (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The current article is too English focused. It does not give proper standing to the other three nations of the United Kingdom. At the moment we should focus on revising the lead paragraph and how we can update it in a fashion all of us can assent. Meenmore (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

You need to familiarize yourself with WP:UNDUE. Among other things, this policy article states, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." England has certainly been politically dominant in the UK throughout its existence so it is not surprising that this article would also emphasize English contributions. For example, in "The British Constitution: A Very Short Introduction" (only 118 pages of text) by Martin Laughlin, Scotland is only indexed to nine pages. So what reliable secondary sources do you rely on in determining that Scotland et. al. are not given proper weight in this article?

The first paragraph you mention contains the following important sentence:

"The British constitution primarily draws from four sources: statute law (laws passed by the legislature), common law (laws established through court judgments), parliamentary conventions, and works of authority."

Parliament, dominated by English representatives, has been the dominant force in shaping the evolution of of the Constitution. How have Scotland et. al. contributed to the evolution of the Constitution in these four areas? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Without Scotland there would be no United Kingdom of Great Britain. This fact you appear to forget. The Kingdom of England is not the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the United Kingdom of Great Britain is not the Kingdom of England. The Kingdom of England is the Kingdom of England and the United Kingdom of Great Britain is the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England united in one kingdom.

Guanaco Sadly we have not made any progress, both of my contributions appear to be reverted back due to their vote method regarding consensus. Meenmore (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

More sadly, I just made a very open-ended request for relevant information on (1) sourcing and (2) information you thought should be added; you responded with a bizarre non-answer ("Without Scotland there would be no United Kingdom of Great Britain") unrelated to the British Constitution. Equally bizarre, you are complaining about being reverted, yet you failed to provide substantive responses yesterday's specific comments or provide sources and very clearly wrote, "I do not think it is relevant to discuss the legal systems at this point." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Sadder still, despite the efforts of Guanaco to get you to discuss proposed changes, you have now embarked on a series of edits that are sure to be controversial. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

How are they controversial? Why are all my edits and contributions controversial but you appear to always agree with the edits and contributions by Whizz40. The reason I tend to be in dispute with Whizz40 is the fact he cites sources but does not read the content of the source itself. For an example the claim that the United Kingdom Parliament can repeal at will the legislation that created the Scottish Parliament in 1998. The most recent Scotland Act explicitly states the Scottish Parliament is permanent unless the People of Scotland wish it not to be. With no disrespect intended but this article is largely substandard, incoherent and inconsistent. My desire and goal is to improve it. Meenmore (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Guanaco, the edit war has reignited and as you can observe none of us have the 'moral' high ground as we are all guilty of subscribing to a non-compromising attitude. The dispute is evidently rooted in the two constitutional traditions of the Union, the Scottish constitutional tradition which can be traced back to the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath and before, and the English constitutional tradition which appears to be rooted in the Republican victory of the English Civil War. It has been long held, by Scottish Constitutional Lawyers and Judges of the Supreme Court of Scotland that because the Monarchy of Scotland was already limited in accordance with Scottish Constitutional Law for hundreds of years prior to the Treaty of Union, you cannot re-limit an already limited monarchy (Claim of Right 1689). It is true within the Kingdom of England that the Republicans also known as parliamentarians did win the English Civil War and while the constitutional framework of England was republican, the Parliament of England was sovereign, however, the constitutional framework of England is no longer republican, it was the Kingdom of England that entered into a union with the Kingdom of Scotland, not the Republic of England. In this united kingdom the monarch is Sovereign.

An Act of Parliament cannot become law unless the Queen gives it Royal Assent, for an example, it has been proved that the Parliament of Great Britain is not a sovereign legislature and has never been within its entire history a sovereign legislature, a sovereign legislature is ultimately supreme, it is dependent on its will and only its will, the fact the acts of the Parliament of Great Britain needs the approval of the monarchy proves that the United Kingdom of Great Britain (and Northern Ireland) is a kingdom and not a republic. When the monarchy of England was reinstated William III refused royal assent several times which proves parliamentary sovereignty did not exist within the Parliament of England prior to the Treaty of Union. And it was proved that the newly created Parliament of Great Britain also did not enjoy the parliamentary sovereignty professed by certain English constitutional theorists. Queen Anne refused to give Royal Assent to an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain. The fact the Queen can in theory assert her authority as the only sovereign body within the state proves parliament is not sovereign and in fact Elizabeth is sovereign and a glorious sovereign she is. Meenmore (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Meenmore: Whizz40 seems to be making good faith efforts to clarify the paragraph in question, citing sources and expanding in response to your objections. The article may not be what you want at this time, but I see it's growing and moving forward. There's still an editing dispute, but I think the stale edit war has broken. The way forward in covering a balanced assessment of Scottish and English views and traditions may be to keep adding content, then revising and refactoring it.

I can see that the Scotland Act 2016 is strongly worded in recognizing the Scottish Parliament as a permanent institution, and it can be used to support what you've been saying. But it's a primary source, and it shouldn't be analyzed and interpreted too deeply by us. Better to leave that to reliable journalists and scholars of Scottish constitutional law. I recommend finding sources which share your Scottish constitutional point of view and attributing the claims to the source in a paragraph or two. —Guanaco 21:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Constitution of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141211140036/http://www.consoc.org.uk/other-content/about-us/discover-the-facts/what-is-the-british-constitution/ to http://www.consoc.org.uk/other-content/about-us/discover-the-facts/what-is-the-british-constitution/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The article should include the position that the UK has no constitution whatsoever

Historically, this position had been held by Thomas Paine, Tocqueville and many others, and most recently put forward by former President of the Supreme Court Lord Neuberger[26]:
"I think that it is very significant that the UK has a very different constitutional arrangement from every other European country. Unlike every other European country, we have no written constitution and we have parliamentary sovereignty. Indeed, it may be said with considerable force that we have no constitution as such at all, merely constitutional conventions, and that it is as a consequence of this that we have parliamentary sovereignty. The relatively pragmatic outlook of a system with no written constitution and parliamentary sovereignty involves a very different approach to government from the more principled, but less flexible, system enjoyed by the rest of Europe. But the point goes further than that. The absence of a written constitution and the existence of Parliamentary sovereignty mean that we have no history of the courts overruling Parliament. Over the past thirty years there has been an academic debate sputtering away about whether, in extreme circumstances, the courts could overrule a statute, but it is very much an academic issue – and I hope that it remains so." Johnny553424252 (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Good Friday Agreement

I just wonder:

Because the Good Friday Agreement binds the British government on several points of law in Northern Ireland, it has de facto become a part of Constitution of the United Kingdom?

Could we consider that the GFA is part of the UK's own constitutional requirements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.212 (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Might be one element of answer is that: The UK Government’s White Paper, ‘The United Kingdom’s exit from and new partnership with the European Union’ pledges ‘continued adherence to the constitutional framework, rights and institutions provided for in the Belfast Agreement’... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.193.103.212 (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Church of England and Church of Scotland

While this had been discussed before, I think it is worth discussing again. See for example:

Page 9: An essential preliminary is to tease out the meaning of ‘establishment’ in the church/state context. Clearly, the term is ambiguous: For example, whilst it is often accepted that both the Church of England and the Church of Scotland are ‘established’ churches, no-one would argue that they are established in the same way.

— https://www.ucl.ac.uk/political-science/publications/unit-publications/133.pdf

Pages 19-20:The Church of Scotland defines itself in these terms and is an example of an alternative way of being for the Church in relation to the state. The Church of Scotland exists somewhere between an Established church and a Free Church in this regard, having full autonomy and correspondingly not having certain privileges, such as seats in the House of Lords. The Sovereign is not its governor. A national church along these lines might be conceivable by some in the tradition of Dissent. But all Dissenters would, in my judgement, resist the arrangement by which the Sovereign appoints the Church of England Bishops, and some others, on the advice of the British Prime Minister, thereby according the secular government a decisive role in the government of the Church. In effect, the Prime Minister has final power of appointment of the Church’s leading figures, whatever may be the nature of the Prime Minister’s religious convictions or lack of them. The political justification for this is that since Bishops may hold seats in the House of Lords, the Prime Minister should have at least some say as to who these members of Parliament might be. The theological justification is hard to fathom.

Page 28:the assertion of the Church of Scotland’s freedom and independence was enacted in 1921 to enable church reunion with those Scottish Presbyterians who had stood out against patronage and state control

Page 41: At the other end of the spectrum, the bonds of the Church of Scotland with both the British and Scottish authorities are mainly symbolic and the State does not interfere in the religious affairs of the Church.

— https://www.ucl.ac.uk/political-science/publications/unit-publications/143.pdf

The Church of England’s unique constitutional status gives it a monopoly role as the sole official state institution charged with relations between the UK state and with God.

— https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-church-of-england-an-anachronistic-religious-monopoly/

C of E ... still has an influence over our laws: 26 bishops (including the two archbishops, currently Justin Welby in Canterbury and John Sentamu in York) sit in the House of Lords.

— https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/oct/07/church-and-state-an-unhappy-union

Previous discussions:

• Talk:Constitution of the United Kingdom/Archive 1#Established Church
• Talk:Constitution of the United Kingdom/Archive 1#Church of England / Scotland
• Talk:Constitution of the United Kingdom/Archive 1#There is no British constitution
• Talk:Constitution of the United Kingdom/Archive 2#My contribution to 'Constitution of the United Kingdom' has been undone. I would like to know the country of origin of the person who undone my entry.
• Talk:Constitution of the United Kingdom/Archive 2#Notice to seek consensus for a complete revision and updated article for the Constitution of the United Kingdom.

Welcome any other reliable sources for discussion. Whizz40 (talk) 06:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The title should be Church of England and Church of Scotland as the section mentions both churches at length. AlbionChief (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I thought about that as a reason for the section title you proposed. While I agree on one hand, one the other hand that would look to the reader as if both Churches have the same significance in the context of the Constitution of the United Kingdom. Only on parsing the section content could the reader begin to understand that the CofE is an established state Church while the Church of Scotland has somewhat disestablished itself. While there is still a significant debate about Antidisestablishmentarianism as regards the CofE. Whizz40 (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Both churches have the same significance in the context of the Constitution of the United Kingdom, none. Your reasoning does not validate why you omit the Church of Scotland from the section title as the section mentions both churches at length. AlbionChief (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Improvements

I'm going to start working on revising this page to bring it up to a good standard. All suggestions and contributions for what should go in/out are very welcome here, and I will do my best to incorporate. Wikidea 08:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Clearly we would need to plan for moving European Union membership to the History section or History of the Constitution of the United Kingdom when the Uk leaves. Beyond that there has been work on improvements over the years to address specific issues raised by editors - would be good to retain these aspects. Are there any particularly issues or overall approach you have in mind currently? Whizz40 (talk) 05:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree the page needs to be of a better standard, however, it will be difficult as the United Kingdom does not have a de jure constitution. AlbionChief (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Both interesting points. I think generally the place to start is proper sources from the best texts. I'm also just wondering what (if anything) distinguishes this from UK constitutional law. Maybe even a merger is in order? But if not, I'll start putting in some work within the current structure. Wikidea 21:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

So here's what I've worked in so far. All suggestions very welcome:

• New introduction. Removed subheadings under theory.
• Principles section: sources and conventions now dealt with in lead, unity and devolution covered in 'democracy', EU law under the international principle.
• Institutions section: monarch and cabinet merged under executive with prerogative. Church of England doesn't seem to be an institution in any textbook that I can find. Best for another article?
• Human rights summary section - need a dropdown list of rights?
• Administrative law: summary section with sources. Wikidea 01:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The Article contains the common confusion between Democracy & Republic

In a real democracy, the people themselves generally vote the laws. In a Republic, elected representatives make the law. The entire article thus requires revision to eliminate this confusion. (PeacePeace (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC))

I don't think everyone will agree with you on this! Representative democracy is democracy. Presumably you like direct democracy? A good book is David Held, Models of Democracy. Wikidea 17:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The oldest constitution in the world

Last week, I requested a citation for this major assertion. Using ref tags (which should be used only for actual citations of supporting material written by wp:reliable sources, certainly not for editor opinion), an editor or editors provided their own wp:original research to support the view that the constitution has continued uninterrupted since Magna Carta. This may well be true, but nonetheless still needs supporting evidence. Meanwhile, I have deleted the opinion piece because it is not a citation even though it purported to be one. At best, it is a footnote.

Superficially at least, it seems likely that the English Civil War, the Commonwealth of England and The Protectorate so dramatically changed the constitution that it would seem to require some serious verbal gymnastics to claim that it has remained the same in essence throughout. There was no King and no Parliament, just the Lord Protector. It is certainly true that, after the Restoration of the Monarchy, the monarchists tried to whitewash out of history this period as a temporary insanity that didn't really count for anything. But that is not enough. I am no historian and would not for a moment try to defend this as a position, but I do pose it as a question. I have no doubt that there is a reliable source that addresses it, so let's see it. --Red King (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Article's a complete mess

This article, the United Kingdom constitutional law article and the History of the constitution of the United Kingdom article are, I'm afraid to say, a total mess. Duplication, POV statements, general commentary, OR... you name it. Quite disgraceful that it's got to this point. It would take hundreds of hours to sort it out. Sumorsǣte (talk) 13:24, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I can only agree. First time visitor to the page, startled by how poor it is. Less like an encyclopedic article, more like a rambling, opinionated high school essay. And next to useless regarding the purpose for which I sought it out. Disappointing to realise that you're right, it would take so much work to fix that it's probably just not feasible. Aboctok (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Could you give some examples of what you have in mind, and which parts you don't like? Then those problems can be fixed. Wikidea 18:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Wikidea: Apologies, I would even be as bold as proposing a revert to the version before your re-write. Whizz40 (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

My sense is that it may be too complex for general readers, and I perhaps did a bad job in the intro particularly. But I do appreciate criticism where it's helpful, not lazy, and I am keen to ensure it's readable: reducing material, and moving parts to subpages where needed. You are, however, dealing with a complex topic that isn't easy to fully understand. You may also notice there are now hundreds of case pages created. So if you could start by stating what you actually don't like that will be constructive - a few examples is all I need and I can redact the whole thing accordingly. Cheers, Wikidea 09:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

For me, I found the old version of the article easier to understand as a reader in terms of both format and content. With the current version, as an editor, I just don't know where to start. As mentioned by another editor in this revert, there is significant overlap introduced because text was copied from United Kingdom constitutional law, and I agree it isn't desirable to have such a high degree of overlap between the two articles. It was subsequently reverted here without discussion. This re-write removed the incremental development that makes Wikipedia articles unique because they are a collaboration of contributions by many editors on a specific topic. Apologies, I would propose we go back to the old version. Whizz40 (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying it's too long? Please try and give a few examples of what you don't like, otherwise there's not much that can be done. On the previous version, I'd actually created most of the headings some time ago - the problem is that the information within them was poor quality, unreferenced, sometimes wrong, irrelevant, and not comprehensive. It was, however, shorter... I'm very open to constructive ideas. Give it some thought, or alternatively I can just try and guess. Wikidea 14:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The content is written in long paragraphs of prose that have been lifted from other articles. This makes the detail impenetrable which masks any insight into the key aspects of this topic. To get the key points, the reader has to parse the whole section or article and then do their own abstract thinking to interpret what the insights are. See for example this good article review which raised similar types of issues, i.e. the article "describes rather than explaining". In other words the article is not written in an encyclopedic style. Many of the issues are covered at Wikipedia:Writing better articles. The complete re-write of the article since July 2019 is affected by these issues. Addressing this would seem to require either extensive re-editing of the whole article or going back to a previous version and progressing from there in an encyclopedic style. Whizz40 (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

See for example this thesis which provides the following salient guidance in the conclusion "The narratives offered here are narrower and more abstract than those offered by historians, which means that I leave out a lot of information. Description therefore suffers at the expense of explanation." [27] (pg 93) Whizz40 (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Personally, my take when looking at the text was "reads like a history essay / text". I sort of agree that it impairs "skimmability". I think there are a two things going on here. The paragraphs are a little "narrative" in structure. They go 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.2.1, 2, 2.1, 2.2, ... where as other articles would go more like "1, 2, 3, 4. \P 1.1, 1.2, \P 2.1". I sort of see what Whizz40 is saying about "explanation". I guess the history style is written so that it doesn't state things without authority, rather it provides a narrative to "prove" what it is asserting, while perhaps in encyclopedia style references serve the purpose that "narrative" does in history. Regarding footnotes, I'm a little torn. It does seem to be the case that most articles don't include quotations in references, but I personally think quotes would make verifiability easier, and I've been tempted to include them before when I think someone might challenge a citation.

I suspect other articles might also move some of the history content into a separate history section or paragraph rather than having history throughout the document. I guess this article lives between the topics of politics, law and history. --Talpedia (talk) 23:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Agree on use of quotations in cites. I saw a discussion some time ago where Jimbo Wales mentioned he thought we should be doing this more often. Whizz40 (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

This article also has the same issues about the misuse of references I identify on the United Kingdom constitutional law article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

So what it seems we really need is a lot of editors and editing to get this Level-5 vital article up to a high standard. I'll try to enlist other editors at the Wiki projects above.

• @Wikidea: Can you work on the improvements you proposed above (e.g. reducing paragraph length, and moving parts to subpages where needed) taking into account the suggestions above (e.g. focusing on explanatory insights)?
• @Escape Orbit: Thanks for your comments above. Would you be able to make changes and improvements to this article similar to those you made at United Kingdom constitutional law?
• @Sumorsǣte: @Aboctok: Would you be able to assist with improvements to the article? Whizz40 (talk) 11:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

To give an example, the article International relations of the Great Powers (1814–1919) deals with a detailed historical topic by giving concise explanations throughout. Whizz40 (talk) 18:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Wikidea: The baton is in your hands, how do you propose we proceed? Whizz40 (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it might be informative to select the "worst" paragraph and edit it with some critique. Then we can generalize this to other paragraphs.

--Talpedia (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I think first of all, with some perspective now, @Wikidea:'s improvements to this article on a challenging topic are significant and we may have overlooked commending how well such a broad and deep topic has been covered in his re-write of the article. Nonetheless, it might be possible to improve further, which is the focus of this discussion. I think it would be best led by Wikidea. Whizz40 (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The article is unwieldy. It's a very hard read for me, which is a shame because there's important and informative material there. A lot of the paragraphs are far too long, but it's not just a question of shorter paragraphs as has been proposed, I think some well-placed paragraph breaks would really help the reader. For example, in the lead section, I would like to see a paragraph break after the first two lines (after the word "consensus."). The second paragraph would then start: "In England in 1215..." which would make more sense to me as an historical theme is being introduced. With such as big jump in time, it really deserves a new paragraph. This would have the effect of keeping a very clear, concise opening that would help readers get the gist of the article before it becomes more complex, and might invite the reader's eye in. I've tried it in the editor (as a draft without publishing it) and it looks good. I'm still a newbie, so this is not intended to be discouraging in any way, as I'm familiar with the enormous contribution of @Wikidea: to Wikipedia; in particular the vast range of UK caselaw articles, which are fantastic. It's important to make this article work, to find ways to improve it. SpookiePuppy (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Uncodified constitution

One thing that I would like to suggest is whether some of the sentences that relate to the question of the UK constitution being uncodified could be drawn together into a main (Level-2) section. This would help readers who want to know more about this subtle area to find the information they are looking for. I'm having trouble understanding this aspect myself: The UK constitution is well-known as being uncodified, but it's not like we don't have anything written down. So it's a "partially unwritten" constitution, but still classed as 'uncodified'. Under the section "Principles", [28] there's a statement: "The UK constitution has not been codified in one document, in contrast to documents such as the Constitution of the United States..." which is very helpful, as it's explaining that the constitution has not been codified in one document. There is an important annotation for the Monet "Houses of Parliament" image box, "Though not codified, the UK's constitution is written in hundreds of Acts of Parliament, court cases, and in documented conventions..." This is also very helpful, but may be lost in the image box. I really think the article would benefit from a level-2 section on the uncodified or partially unwritten nature of the constitution, and I would also propose that the current section "Principles" should be a Level-3 subsection of that. I would also suggest that Parliamentary Sovereignty should be a primary (Level-2) section, rather than a Level-3 subsection. SpookiePuppy (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Improving the article

Thanks very much for the constructive comments above, and I'm grateful for the comment about this being a broad and deep topic. I've just had to do some work in the real world. In the next week I will go over this and as those of you above suggest:

• shorten as much as possible
• aim for "skimmability" - this is a good suggestion, e.g. for people on phones, rather than a narrative - though keep in mind there will be many law students (and practitioners, though they won't admit it!) and policy people, who use this
• get rid of unnecessary "narrative"
• move excess detail to sub-pages

If I've missed any main points about this page - and if you have particular things in the page that you'd like to see clarified, or examples of dumb sentences that exemplify the problems as you see them, please do add them here. Wikidea 12:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Too much prominence is given to 'internationalism' and the section overlooks the fact that the UK is dualist, that state immunity trumps jus cogens violations in domestic courts and that universal jurisdiction has been greatly watered down. A number of the older cases cited have little or no practical relevance today. There should be no reference here to the 2016 referendum result which is entirely irrelevant in this context. In the same vein, there's no need to refer to who brought the case in Miller 1; it is the outcome which is important. In terms of more general comments on this article, I find there is a lot missing and too much of what is here has the flavour of a tourist bus tour in Central London. The Cabinet manual would not be a bad place to start in terms of filling the gaps. It's also important to emphasise that all four parts of the UK may not have the same understanding of the constitution. Parliamentary sovereignty, for example, plays a lesser role in Scotland than it does in the rest of the UK. NI still has the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 and, of course, the Belfast Agreement. Lamberhurst (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this, that's very useful. Could you possibly say which cases have superseded the "older cases" that you refer to? Wikidea 08:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Just to update, I've started to rewrite - beginning by shortening and improving the lead introduction, and the start of the principles/parliamentary sovereignty section. Many more suggestions - particularly within the main text - are very welcome. Wikidea 10:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

List of constitutional documents

At one point, this article included a list of Acts that were considered to be 'constitutional in nature' by a joint select committee of the two houses of parliament, with such documents as Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the two Parliament Acts, the Acts of Union, etc.

Why has it been removed?

JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

sovereignty

For as long as the crown has the power that it has (not least as the instrument of government and approval of legislation), parliamentary sovereignty is but wishful thinking. Parliament may have considerable power, but the sovereign remains sovereign, for all the limitations placed on and/or accepted by him or her. This is not a quibble or an undemocratic opinion. Constitutional studies have to deal unambiguously with such detail. The existence of the crown and the continued exercise of all governmental power in its name is what defines the UK and its governance. Parliament sits in a royal palace and the king or queen has to sanction all its laws. A representation of the crown is to be found in all courts and on official documents, and the expression UK Government isn't based in fact. The national anthem isn't about the nation but about the sovereign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfedanon (talk • contribs) 14:00, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Non-sequitur reference to human rights?

Under Principles, in the middle of the paragraph: "Second, the rule of law has run through the constitution as a fundamental principle from the earliest times as "The king must [be] . . . . under the law, because the law makes the king" - Henry de Bracton in the C13th. This principle was recognised in the Magna Carta 1215 and the Petition of Right 1628. This means the government may only conduct itself according to legal authority, including respect for human rights.[14]"

The excerpt begins by establishing rule of law as a core constitutional principle. It then refers to Magna Carta as the basis for this. But then, it hastily includes human rights. Is it trying to make a separate, additional point that human rights are a core constitutional principle (possibly citing Magna Carta for this)? If so, I think this needs to be made clearer. Currently it just sounds like it is conflating rule of law with human rights, which are completely separate concepts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditorPerson53 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)