Subnational constitutionalism in comparative perspective: the case of Scotland

This paper compares the parliamentary, judicial and other checks and balances that apply to the devolved government of Scotland with those that apply to state and provincial governments in Australia and Canada, the two Commonwealth countries which, because of their shared Westminster origins and much longer experience, offer the prospect of the greatest comparative insight. It considers whether the position in terms of checks and balances is broadly similar or different, how the differences, if any, might be accounted for, and what lessons, if any, might be drawn for the prospects for constitutionalism or limited government in Scotland—whether as a newly independent state following a second independence referendum or as a continuing part of the UK.