My name is Ellie Tanner and I am a political science major and Spanish minor at the University of South Carolina. I went on the UK Law abroad program in the summer of 2025 and absolutely adored my time in both England and Scotland. I chose CIS Abroad because of the fantastic opportunities to learn more about the law abroad that they offered me, as I dream of one day being an attorney. My time abroad has forever changed my perspective on life, and has provided me with some amazing friends. I can’t recommend it more!
Throughout the last two weeks, our class had the opportunity to travel throughout the United Kingdom and experience firsthand their judicial and political systems. We were able to discuss these systems in depth, as well as debate large questions that were reflected in the experiences we had during the day. All of the many experiences I was able to have during this trip have made me aware of the numerous different ways of life and systems of governance that I had never before considered, which will most definitely shape the way I view both American and international politics in the future.
The first big question we discussed as a class was whether a written constitution or a series of statutes is better for governing a nation. I had never considered this before, as I am simply used to the United States Constitution and, as such, never considered that the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution.
However, after learning about how Parliament functions, both from our readings and our tour of Parliament in Westminster, I am positive in my belief that a written constitution is a better form of governance than statutes. In addition to our discussion of whether or not a written constitution is necessary to protect individual rights, we also discussed which institution or branch of government is best suited to protect civil liberties.
Many other class discussions were centered on the concept of devolution, which refers to the process of England giving power back to its fellow United Kingdom members, specifically Scotland. The clearest way we saw this throughout our trip was on our day spent at Holyrood in Edinburgh. Holyrood is the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, which formally began sitting in 1999 due to a vote enacted by the government of then Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Holyrood’s very existence is a prime example of the work done through devolution. Now that Scotland has their own Parliament, it can sometimes get a bit messy between England and Scotland as to who truly has the right to make certain decisions.
One topic that we discussed heavily while in London was the British Museum and its collection of stolen goods. We discussed the Ethiopian Orthodox Talbots that the Museum holds and refuses to return to their rightful home, despite them not even being able to be on display due to their religious significance. Similarly to these talbots, I saw both the stolen Rosetta Stone from Egypt and the stolen Elgin Marbles from Greece, all lining the walls of the museum and attracting by far the most attention of any of the exhibits.
While I had heard of the British Museum and their collection before, it was another thing to see them flaunting the misfortune of other nations so casually. There was no recognition given to how they gained these items, and many exhibits had explanations of things being “gifted” to the Lords while they were traveling or other descriptions of this nature. I found the British Museum to be inherently important to our class's study of Brexit and all it entails, as I believe the Museum could be crucial to progress for the United Kingdom.
While in London, we heard from many locals about how angry many Brits are over Brexit. We discussed how it has not only caused moving between the United Kingdom and the European Union to be more difficult, but also caused the United Kingdom to lose crucial trade deals.
While at the Supreme Court, we saw how cases there are more of a conversation amongst professionals, rather than the adversarial system we see in the U.S., where both attorneys and the justices all seem to be fighting with one another. Rather, the United Kingdom Supreme Court appeared to be more focused on uncovering who was at fault in regards to the case at hand, which to me appeared to be a perfect example of how a strong judiciary is best equipped to protect civil liberties.
That leads us to our third and final question: what should be considered more, morality or bureaucratic convenience? Given the presence of a constitution and a strong judiciary to protect the civil liberties outlined in such a document, I feel the completion of the trifecta is to consider morality more when trying cases.
Based on my observations in both Scotland and England, I feel that the best system to move forward in the world is a government with a written constitution, a strong judiciary to carry out said constitution, and prosecutors who consider morality, rather than bureaucratic convenience.
The last few weeks truly provided me with countless once-in-a-lifetime experiences and the ability to see firsthand other countries' systems of governance. It showed me different ways of life that I had never imagined before and could never have dreamed of having.
Blog adapted from course final assignment by Ellie Tanner
Custom Faculty-Led Program:
Comparative Law in England and Scotland
University of South Carolina, Summer 2025