How Might The Sewel Convention's Current Formulation, As Reinterpreted In The Context Of The Supreme Court's 2017 Judgment In R (Miller) V Secretary Of State For Exiting The European Union, Affect The Legislative Competence Of The Scottish Parliament In The Event Of A Future UK Government Seeking To Implement A Statutory Instrument Under The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, Particularly If Such An Instrument Were To Alter A Devolved Matter Without The Prior Consent Of The Scottish Parliament?

The Sewel Convention, as interpreted in the Miller case, remains a political agreement without legal enforceability, meaning the Scottish Parliament cannot challenge UK legislation in court if it affects devolved matters without consent. However, the UK government's use of statutory instruments under the EU Withdrawal Act 2018 to alter devolved matters without Scottish consent could lead to significant political tensions, including protests from the Scottish Government and potential non-cooperation. While the UK Parliament can legally make such changes, doing so risks undermining the devolution settlement and may prompt the Scottish Parliament to assert its authority, possibly through its own legislation, though UK law would take precedence. Thus, while legally permissible, such actions could strain intergovernmental relations and highlight the Convention's political importance.