1.1 - Constitutional principles and sources
The UK constitution draws on several kinds of rule rather than one master document. This lesson explains its nature, the twin pillars of parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law, and the five sources listed in 1.1, so you can distinguish legal authority from political expectations.
Uncodified and unentrenched rules
How constitutional rules are collected is a different question from how easily they can be changed.
Uncodified and codified
An uncodified constitution is dispersed across different sources. A codified constitution collects its central rules in a single constitutional document.
The UK is uncodified, but much of its constitution is written: Acts of Parliament, judgments, treaties and explanatory works all appear in writing. Calling it simply “unwritten” risks implying that these texts do not exist. Some rules are unwritten conventions, although even these can be described in written guidance.
The UK constitution is also generally unentrenched: constitutional changes normally use the ordinary legislative process rather than a separate constitutional-amendment procedure. An entrenched constitution gives its fundamental rules higher status and requires special procedures to alter them, such as a supermajority or referendum. Codification and entrenchment are distinct: collecting rules in one text would not necessarily protect that text against ordinary amendment.
The repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 by the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 demonstrates the capacity to change a constitutional rule through legislation. The enacted 2022 law expressly repealed the earlier Act. The implication is flexibility: a later Parliament can respond to a rule it considers unsuccessful. The corresponding concern is that an executive with dependable parliamentary support can alter important rules without unusually demanding consent.
There are qualifications. Some devolved electoral changes have special voting requirements, and courts recognise the importance of constitutional statutes. Political commitments and referendums can also make change difficult in practice. These features do not establish a comprehensive higher-law constitution binding every future UK Parliament. Distinguish the ordinary legal route from political difficulty.
If you sit in 2027: Issue 3's glossary defines uncodified and unentrenched mainly through their absence of a single document and special amendment procedure. Issue 4 adds explicit explanations of codified and entrenched. The contrasts taught here are accurate for either series; they do not change the UK into an unwritten constitution.
A unitary state with devolved power
The distribution of everyday decisions does not necessarily determine the location of ultimate legal authority.
In a unitary system, ultimate legal sovereignty is concentrated at the centre. A federal system constitutionally divides authority between levels of government, so the regional level does not simply depend on powers an ordinary central law can withdraw. Federal arrangements vary; the important contrast is constitutionally protected authority at more than one level.
The UK is conventionally described as unitary because Parliament at Westminster retains ultimate legislative authority. Devolution distributes powers to institutions such as the Scottish Parliament without transferring parliamentary sovereignty. These institutions make real laws and major policy decisions within their competence; “not sovereign” does not mean “powerless”. The Commons Library explains reserved and devolved matters.
For example, a Scottish health policy can differ from an English one because health is devolved. That is evidence of decentralised power and policy autonomy. It does not establish a separate sovereign Scottish state. Conversely, asserting Westminster's legal power does not show that abolishing a popular devolved institution would be politically easy. Statutory recognition of permanence, commitments to consent and public expectations create strong practical constraints.
This produces asymmetrical devolution: Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have different settlements, while England has regional and local arrangements rather than an equivalent national legislature. A unitary constitution can therefore contain substantial territorial diversity. The useful comparison is between the legal source of regional authority and its political strength, rather than a simple centralised/decentralised label.
If you sit in 2027: Issue 3 describes unitary government through concentrated legal sovereignty; Issue 4 also expressly explains the federal contrast. Use the accurate distinction here, while recognising that legal sovereignty and extensive devolved powers are compatible in the UK.
Sovereignty and the rule of law
The twin pillars concern both the authority to make law and the requirement to exercise public power lawfully.
Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament can enact, amend and repeal law; under the orthodox account, it cannot generally bind a future Parliament against changing that law. Courts apply Acts rather than normally striking down UK primary legislation simply because they regard its policy as unconstitutional. Parliament's authority must be distinguished from the government: ministers need lawful powers and parliamentary support where legislation is required. The Commons Library discusses the doctrine and its contested boundaries.
The rule of law requires everyone, including ministers, to operate within law and be accountable for unlawful conduct. It is supported by independent courts, access to justice and rules sufficiently clear for people to understand their obligations. Merely having laws is inadequate if officials can ignore them or punishment is arbitrary.
The pillars often reinforce each other. If Parliament grants a minister a limited power, a court ensuring that the minister stays within it protects Parliament's law-making role. In Miller/Cherry (2019), the Supreme Court held that the prorogation was unlawful because its effect on Parliament's constitutional functions lacked reasonable justification. The Court controlled an executive use of prerogative power; it did not repeal an Act because it preferred another Brexit policy. The judgment explains the legal test.
Tension can arise if Parliament enacts a law critics regard as oppressive or attempts to restrict legal challenges. A defender of legislative supremacy stresses democratic authority; a defender of stronger legal protection stresses that majority rule can threaten minorities. These are competing constitutional arguments, not permission to invent an unlimited judicial veto.
The important reasoning chain is authority → legal limit → remedy. Ask who acted, where their power came from and how the alleged breach can be challenged. “The government is sovereign so courts cannot intervene” confuses an executive with Parliament and overlooks judicial review of executive legality.
Continue this lesson.
You’re previewing NovaLearn without an account. Create a free account to read the rest.
Create free account