Interpretation of legislation implementing acutely political government policies presents challenges for courts in a variety of ways. Those challenges are heightened when the measure is one originating from the devolved legislatures of the UK nations where courts have the power to declare that such acts are ‘not law’ where they exceed the defined legislative competence of the devolved legislature, including Convention grounds. This article explores the decisions of both the Inner House of the Court of Session and the UK Supreme Court in Salvesen v. Riddell, the first civil case in which legislation has been held to be outwith the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence. The case is noteworthy for differing routes to the same result and the range of tools for construction which were deployed, including contrasting views on the relevancy of parliamentary statements. In addition to consideration of the interpretative approaches, this article also considers the approach of the UK Supreme Court to the fashioning of remedies in a situation where the legislation struck down had effects on existing and long-vested rights.

中文翻译：

---

在苏格兰农业历史和宪法的交汇处：Salvesen 诉 Riddell 和苏格兰议会的立法权限

对实施尖锐政治性政府政策的立法的解释以多种方式向法院提出了挑战。当该措施源自英国国家的权力下放立法机构时，如果此类行为超出权力下放立法机构的既定立法权限（包括公约依据），法院有权宣布此类行为“不是法律”，则这些挑战就会加剧。本文探讨了最高法院内院和英国最高法院在 Salvesen v. Riddell 案中的裁决，这是第一起立法被裁定超出苏格兰议会立法权限的民事案件。该案例值得注意，因为获得相同结果的路线不同，并且部署的施工工具范围不同，包括对议会声明相关性的不同看法。除了考虑解释性方法外，本文还考虑了英国最高法院在立法被废止对现有和长期既得权利产生影响的情况下制定补救措施的方法。