The historical differences between Scottish and English Law, and what it means for Brexit

• 10 things you (probably) didn’t know about Scottish history
• Scotland on the brink: the nation's final years of independence
• Your guide to Queen Anne, the last of the Stuart monarchs

How do Scottish and English law differ?

Several specific differences between Scots and English law are well known. The most famous is the existence of three, rather than two, possible verdicts in a Scottish criminal jury trial. The additional one is ‘not proven’. This verdict is an acquittal, but with an acknowledgement of continuing doubt about the innocence of the accused. It originates in juries being asked about individual specific factual allegations, to which they gave a ‘special verdict’ of ‘proven’ or ‘not proven’. However, from the 18th century, ‘not proven’ and ‘not guilty’ have co-existed as overall verdicts, leaving three possible outcomes for a criminal trial.

Other differences too exist regarding the criminal jury: the Scottish jury has 15 rather than 12 members, and decides with a simple majority verdict.

Another commonly held view is that there is no law of trespass in Scotland. This is in fact untrue. Trespass has long been a civil wrong and there also can be criminal offences of trespass under statute law. In the field of property law, many remaining elements of medieval feudal landholding were ended in England by the Tenures Abolition Act of 1660. However, in Scotland feudal elements, notably the payment of annual feu [the Scottish term for what in English is called a fief] duties to a superior, continued for much longer, only being ended by the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000.

Another commonly held view is that there is no law of trespass in Scotland. This is in fact untrue

More broadly, Scots law is a ‘mixed system’, that is one which combines elements of the Common Law – the system that exists in England, as well as the US, many Commonwealth countries, and elsewhere – and the Civil Law, based on Roman law, characteristic particularly but not exclusively of Continental European legal systems. The balance between these two elements in Scots law is contested, from historical, legal, and ideological viewpoints. In the Middle Ages many aspects of Scots law resembled and were probably derived from English law, in part under the influence of Anglo-French settlers in Scotland. In the area of crime, both England and Scotland had juries. In land law, both were characterised by the starting of many cases by royal written orders – known as writs in England, and as brieves in Scotland. Thus recent wrongful seizure of the land could be dealt with by the ‘writ of novel disseisin’ in England, the ‘brieve of novel dissasine’ in Scotland.

• A brief history of England
• Brexit and American independence (podcast)
• Scottish history: 9 steps from Union to Referendum

However, from the end of the Middle Ages, the practical influence of Roman Law was considerably greater in Scotland than in England. As mentioned earlier, the separate system of Scottish private law was enshrined in the Acts of Union in 1707. Tellingly, to this day the study of Roman law probably continues to be more prominent in Scottish than English University law courses. One can look also at the training of Scottish advocates, who in England would be called barristers: first in the ‘List of Subjects Covered by the Faculty Examinations’ in the Faculty of Advocates’ regulations for entrants (2009 edition) is ‘Roman Law of Property and Obligations.’ At the same time, the ever-increasing element of statutory law passed in the Westminster parliament on issues covering the whole of the UK has brought greater common ground, and so too has EU legislation.

What do the historical differences mean for Brexit?

How far differences between English, Scottish, and UK laws will be determinative of the Supreme Court’s decision on 17 September may be doubted. An issue that may turn even in part on the interpretation of such hard-to-define terms as ‘political’, ‘advice’, and ‘stymie’ is always likely to be problematic for a court.

We may, meanwhile, feel reassured if only in the fact that the legal history of England, Scotland, and the United Kingdom means that the Court is not made up of judges appointed or elected on party political lines.

John Hudson is Professor of Legal History at the University of St Andrews.