Wow, wasn't expecting this - apparently it'll go to the UK Supreme Court.
Take one look at the electorate and tell me a second referendum is sensible.
Wow, wasn't expecting this - apparently it'll go to the UK Supreme Court.
Wonder if Johnson & Co. give a single flying fuck about what a Scottish court has to say.
Really? I know next to nothing about the supreme court but guessed in cases like this they would make a ruling when English and Scots law conflict. Thought it was always the same judges too for some reason.IIRC it's still Scottish (legal system) judges that preside over these cases of they get to the UKSC.
Wonder if Johnson & Co. give a single flying fuck about what a Scottish court has to say.
Its going to the Supreme Court of the UK, so they definitely will have to listen.
Scottish appeal court judges have declared that Boris Johnson's decision to suspend parliament in the run-up to the October Brexit deadline is unlawful.
The three judges, chaired by Lord Carloway, Scotland's most senior judge, overturned an earlier ruling that the courts did not have the powers to interfere in the prime minister's political decision to prorogue parliament.
Lawyers acting for 75 opposition MPs and peers argued Johnson's decision to suspend parliament for five weeks was illegal and in breach of the constitution, as it was designed to stifle parliamentary debate and action on Brexit.
The British government will appeal against the Scottish appeal court's decision, which also contradicts a decision in Johnson's favour by senior English judges last week, at the supreme court.
The supreme court has already scheduled an emergency hearing on both the Scottish and English cases for 17 September, alongside a third challenge brought in the courts in Belfast.
Now that I think about it, the Scots bringing back the lying PM, arresting the Queen as an accessory and declaring Independence is a pretty good third act.
If this sticks it'll be a good attack line for opposition parties.
Good point, the anti Scottish shite worked a treat for Cameron.
It's laughable that we all know WHY it's happening, but that legally, they can say about a new Queen's Speech and blah-di-blah and they will probably satisfy the Supreme Court.
Feels like this is great material for Sturgeon too. Either Scottish judges help defend British democracy, or the 'UK' Supreme Court denies Scotland a voice in Parliament (alongside everyone else, but still).
I'd imagine the executive is still bound by Scots law as much as English law on constitutional matters - in times like this I wish I still knew law students
It's not about being bound to Scottish law, because ultimately the case is going to the UKSC.
What I'm interested in is whether the UKSC, will keep a narrow focus on the judgment, (prorogation stymies Parliament), or whether they'll generally focus on prorogation overall.
My assumption is they'd have to consider it on the basis of Scots Law, though? I'm keen to read more on the implications on this from lawyer-y types.
My assumption is they'd have to consider it on the basis of Scots Law, though? I'm keen to read more on the implications on this from lawyer-y types.
In the government response to the anti-prorogation petition they said:Did the English court decision come from evidence produced by the government? That's what the Scottish case pushed heavily and its clear that it was done to stop parliament scrutinising government behaviour.