Gibson v Lord Advocate [1975] SLT 134 The Acts of Union between England and Scotland contained some fundamental provisions relating to the preservation of certain aspects of Scottish law and institutions, for example that alterations in private law must be 'for the evident utility of the subjects in Scotland' (article XVIII). This case involved a challenge to a European Community common fisheries policy measure because it gave access to Scottish waters. The complainant argued that this was a change in private law which was not for the 'evident utility' of Scots, as required by the Acts of Union. The court held that access to fisheries was not 'private law' and therefore the measure could not be challenged. However, Lord Keith did not rule out an argument of the kind put forward in situation where it might be more relevant on the facts. The arguments in both the above cases were quite inconclusive. Dicey certainly viewed the Acts of Union as having no higher legal status than any other Act and it is true to say that the UK Parliament has altered many of the principles contained in both the Scottish and Irish Acts of Union. Furthermore, the judicial remarks in McCormick and Gibson were obiter. No Scottish court has actually declared an Act of Parliament to be invalid on the basis that it is inconsistent with the Act of Union.