That is because Scots law is different to English law and takes a different approach to its interpretation of constitutional law.
Christ, why can't No 10 talk to its Attorney-General or Solicitor-General before coming out with rubbish like this.
Scottish courts and judges should stick to their jurisdiction - Scotland.
Perhaps this Scottish Court has unintentionally (or, perhaps, intentionally) made Scottish independence inevitable.
By the same argument, Enbglish courts should stick to England and have nothing to do with pan-UK organizations such as the Westminster Parliament. (I do know Mr Johnson called it the English Parliament recently, but legallfy it hasn't regressed that far, EVEL notwithstanding). That would leave UKSC the only court dealing with Parliament, would it not?
Given that proroguing is legal they will probably just say: "ok sorry about that, we are now going to prorogue parliament for the following reason XXXXX"
Not 100% sure what that XXXXX will be but it will sound vaguely coherent.
Why does it need saying, because there are politicians like Johnson who are ignorant of the very basis of the separation of powers and the importance of an independent judiciary. The ghost of Robert Mugabe has his hand on Cummings shoulder
That is because Scots law is different to English law and takes a different approach to its interpretation of constitutional law.
Christ, why can't No 10 talk to its Attorney-General or Solicitor-General before coming out with rubbish like this.
Scottish courts and judges should stick to their jurisdiction - Scotland.
Perhaps this Scottish Court has unintentionally (or, perhaps, intentionally) made Scottish independence inevitable.
By the same argument, Enbglish courts should stick to England and have nothing to do with pan-UK organizations such as the Westminster Parliament. (I do know Mr Johnson called it the English Parliament recently, but legallfy it hasn't regressed that far, EVEL notwithstanding). That would leave UKSC the only court dealing with Parliament, would it not?
BiB - Sounds good to me.
Yes, but if it is only an appeal court it doesn't work!
Fascinating to see what the judgement has revealed in perhaps hitherto unexpressed assumptions.
Who would the PCP make leader in Opposition (I assume we'd be looking at a coronation and no membership ballot given the fact an election could be days away?)
Writ of Mandamus would enforce the decision, could be applied, heard and granted today! For Downing Street to allege politcal bias in a judicial decision is outrageous. No doubt they would hit the roof if anyone had suggested that was the reason for last weeks decision. What have we come to?. If they lose in the Supreme Court on Tuesday the government MUST resign and allow an alternative to replace it, for our sysetem of govertnment to have any credence or respect.
That is because Scots law is different to English law and takes a different approach to its interpretation of constitutional law.
Christ, why can't No 10 talk to its Attorney-General or Solicitor-General before coming out with rubbish like this.
Scottish courts and judges should stick to their jurisdiction - Scotland.
Perhaps this Scottish Court has unintentionally (or, perhaps, intentionally) made Scottish independence inevitable.
This is a matter for Scotland (as well as the rest of the UK). Westminster governs the entire nation, including Scotland. It's perfectly reasonable to bring a case there to ensure that the government's actions, affecting representatives of Scottish constituencies, are lawful.
In the absence of any UK-wide courts below the Supreme Court, it's just as fair to bring a case under Scottish (or Northern Irish) law for these UK-wide matters as it is to bring one under English law. That's what the Union is about.
The significance of this has not sunk in yet. The SC can and possibly will rule that prorogation was lawful- but has the power to say in doing so that the monarch was misled as to reason. If so the PM has to resign- there can be no greater wrong under the constitution. Boris career could be over next week whatever the Brexit outcome.
Yes that makes sense (IANAL obvs). Proroguing parliament is lawful. But the Queen was fooled/deceived into doing it.
Even if the SC overturns this, that is another stain that JRM in particular will have to bear.
But particularly egregious to question the integrity of the Scottish judges.
All No.10 had to do was say 'we note the decision and await the judgment of the Supreme Court', or something along those lines. They just can't help themselves.
Indeed. It is straight from the Donald Trump school of bluster and unseemly and constitutionally dangerous behaviour
Who would the PCP make leader in Opposition (I assume we'd be looking at a coronation and no membership ballot given the fact an election could be days away?)
Hunt?
Mark Francois.
He's too short & stout to be a leader.
As someone who is, or at least has been, both, I regard that as unreasonable prejudice.
Mind, from his published sayings I can't think of much, if anything, on which I agree with Francois!
Interesting to see Mr Gin seeing the prospect of the government having to resign as a strong possibility rather than just offing the judges like others on here.
Who would the PCP make leader in Opposition (I assume we'd be looking at a coronation and no membership ballot given the fact an election could be days away?)
They seem to be basing the argument on “the central pillar of good governance principle enshrined in the constitution”.
That seems rather weak to me as a justiciable point: we don’t have a written constitution.
I’d expect the Supreme Court to overturn this.
Hard to argue that a central principle enshrined in our constitution is bad governance though...
I don’t think that’s relevant.
The PM can advise HMQ (he’s her minister) what he likes on this and shes obliged (constitutional monarch) to follow his advice.
Johnson has made a very bad decision for political reasons, poorly advised HMQ and abused the convention. It will likely result in more of our constitution being written down.
But it’s not illegal.
Isnt that for the courts to decide?
The Supreme Court, yes.
I don’t see how Scottish courts have jurisdiction over the Parliament of the whole UK. Only the Court of the whole UK does.
Similarly, I’d expect a Scottish court ruling to have supreme weight over Scottish law and the Scottish Parliament.
Any government act which is unlawful as a matter of Scots law cannot be allowed to proceed, as it infringes the Acts of Union.
That seems wholly sensible. The only job for the UK Supreme Court is to see whether the Scottish High Court decision was legally correct under Scots law - and with a good governance clause, that seems a given - and perhaps make a ruling about how Scots, English+Welsh, Northern Irish and UK constitutional law work together.
There’s very little legal or constitutional basis for their judgement that I can see.
Obviously you disagree because you like the decision but it’s a downright weird judgement.
There will be a legal principle that will have been applied, which will become apparent to whomever takes time to read the full judgement. I suspect it will be something similar to the Clean Hands Doctrine, suggesting that the government has prorogued for reasons that are disingenuous and therefore unethical, thereby inequitable to their opponents
There’s very little legal or constitutional basis for their judgement that I can see.
Obviously you disagree because you like the decision but it’s a downright weird judgement.
There will be a legal principle that will have been applied, which will become apparent to whomever takes time to read the full judgement. I suspect it will be something similar to the Clean Hands Doctrine, suggesting that the government has prorogued for reasons that are disingenuous and therefore unethical, thereby inequitable to their opponents
Maybe, yes. At the moment based on the current summary I can’t for the life of me work out what that is, so I await the full judgement with real interest.
The petitioners chose the Scottish Courts because the Claim of Right gave them slightly more leeway on a few of their points than would be the case south of the border.
It's not impossible for the SC to hear both cases next week and find against Miller and for Cherry, of course. It seems unlikely but *gestures around*
Interesting to see Mr Gin seeing the prospect of the government having to resign as a strong possibility rather than just offing the judges like others on here.
Only if the Supreme Court finds HMQ has broken the law on the advice of her Prime Minister on Tuesday,
On that basis we should look forward to lots of other political arrests if he ever managed to get his hands on the machinery of government.
You worry that under Labour, the government will be run by an unelected SpAd with no regard for parliament or the courts? Surely that could never happen in Britain?
Who would the PCP make leader in Opposition (I assume we'd be looking at a coronation and no membership ballot given the fact an election could be days away?)
Hunt?
Mark Francois.
Andrew 'Handy Andy' Bridgen is the man for our times.
Johnson - a manchild born and raised in extreme privilege - has never, ever had people tell him No before. He grew up being indulged and never learning that rules are for everyone, not just other people. His collision with reality over the last few weeks has been quite something.
Johnson - a manchild born and raised in extreme privilege - has never, ever had people tell him No before. He grew up being indulged and never learning that rules are for everyone, not just other people. His collision with reality over the last few weeks has been quite something.
He has been sacked for lying on several occasions and it looks to me that is how his career will end now
The Court of Session has jurisdiction in Scotland. The High Court has jurisdiction in England and Wales. However the judgments of both can be enforced outside their respective jurisdictions (otherwise how would you enforce a cross border debt?) where appropriate. The actions of the Government effect both justifications. Thus cases can be validly brought in either (or, for completeness, in NI).
How hard can this be to understand? There is no jurisdictional issue here.
The thing is, the Queen and her people are not idiots. They knew what was going on, and there was even talk that they'd pushed back on what the government was asking for. I do not understand why courts have been hearing these cases. This is politics. Politicians use process for their own ends all the time.
Those MPs who do not like the current government have an obvious course of action for changing the government. It should be up to elected politicians, not judges, to sort this out.
To be fair, worth reading the 2 paragraph preview on the Telegraph as it shows they do at least know the legend.
"As Greek legend tells it, in a bid to regain his freedom and escape the dominion of a foreign land, Icarus took to the sky, borne aloft by hand-made wings fashioned from wood, feathers and wax. But, enticed by the golden glow of the sun, Icarus flew too high. The sun’s heat melted the wax that secured the feathers to his wings. Icarus plummeted into the sea. He drowned in his own tragedy. It is a morality tale that Nigel Farage would do well to heed. "
The thing is, the Queen and her people are not idiots. They knew what was going on, and there was even talk that they'd pushed back on what the government was asking for. I do not understand why courts have been hearing these cases. This is politics. Politicians use process for their own ends all the time.
Those MPs who do not like the current government have an obvious course of action for changing the government. It should be up to elected politicians, not judges, to sort this out.
Great, let parliament decide and vote on it.......ah but they are not allowed to sit! Next!
Who would the PCP make leader in Opposition (I assume we'd be looking at a coronation and no membership ballot given the fact an election could be days away?)
Why isn't it possible for judges to be politically biased?
They will be as individuals, but their judgement needs to be on the basis of law, and law only. For governments to suggest that a judgement is a political one is very dangerous indeed, as it seeks to undermine the impartiality of the judiciary. Quite frankly, it is fecking outrageous.
One court has ruled that the action was not illegal. Another court has reached a different opinion. Both have allowed the Supreme Court to have the final word. Why not allow it to do so rather than relying on one opinion rather than the other to pass judgement in the meantime? Everything else is speculation for now.
As for No 10's comments, they are not without foundation. The practice they are drawing attention to is standard procedure in the US. Lawyers routinely refer national cases to federal courts with known tame judges which are judged most likely to reach a judgement in their favour, based on their past record. The case is then referred up the chain to the Supreme Court on appeal. It is accepted practice in the US, and as a consequence the decisions in the lower courts are of limited political consequence, because people are familiar with the game being played. That is particularly the case where different federal courts have reached contrary opinions on the same case.
The petitioners chose the Scottish Courts because the Claim of Right gave them slightly more leeway on a few of their points than would be the case south of the border.
It's not impossible for the SC to hear both cases next week and find against Miller and for Cherry, of course. It seems unlikely but *gestures around*
I think this is the point some are missing with this "oh.. the English judges will sort it" schtick. When the Supreme Court hears a Scottish case, it's judging it against Scottish law.
If the Number 10 source is right in his/her implication that Scots judges are activist libs with an axe to grind (compared to our proper English judges, aka "enemies of the people"), I'm sure the SC won't take long to bin off the judgment.
Several people on here don't seem to grasp that a) Scotland is a separate and independent legal jurisdiction and b) Westminster covers three legal jurisdictions.
It is entirely necessary for Westminster's acts to be legal in all three jurisdictions – that is the awkward truth of a political union. You are governing legally separate nations as one nation.
Who would the PCP make leader in Opposition (I assume we'd be looking at a coronation and no membership ballot given the fact an election could be days away?)
Collapse of the Brexit Party vote, Lib-Lab pact even more crucial for Remain cause. Be interesting to see what this latest bombshell does to things, though.
The thing is, the Queen and her people are not idiots. They knew what was going on, and there was even talk that they'd pushed back on what the government was asking for. I do not understand why courts have been hearing these cases. This is politics. Politicians use process for their own ends all the time.
Those MPs who do not like the current government have an obvious course of action for changing the government. It should be up to elected politicians, not judges, to sort this out.
The rule of law applies to politicians just as it applies to you and me.
Britain has a constitution, albeit an unwritten one (or at least a patchwork of different writings with different legal statuses). And the constitution is justiciable, as it is in all other working democracies.
All this speaks of a need to codify the constitution and address many of these uncertainties, but the idea that there are no legally enforceable rules "coz politics innit" is not correct.
The thing is, the Queen and her people are not idiots. They knew what was going on, and there was even talk that they'd pushed back on what the government was asking for. I do not understand why courts have been hearing these cases. This is politics. Politicians use process for their own ends all the time.
Those MPs who do not like the current government have an obvious course of action for changing the government. It should be up to elected politicians, not judges, to sort this out.
Er, no.
The PM has to act within the law of the land – including the land of Scotland.
One court has ruled that the action was not illegal. Another court has reached a different opinion. Both have allowed the Supreme Court to have the final word. Why not allow it to do so rather than relying on one opinion rather than the other to pass judgement in the meantime? Everything else is speculation for now.
As for No 10's comments, they are not without foundation. The practice they are drawing attention to is standard procedure in the US. Lawyers routinely refer national cases to federal courts with known tame judges which are judged most likely to reach a judgement in their favour, based on their past record. The case is then referred up the chain to the Supreme Court on appeal. It is accepted practice in the US, and as a consequence the decisions in the lower courts are of limited political consequence, because people are familiar with the game being played. That is particularly the case where different federal courts have reached contrary opinions on the same case.
But in the US, that's different judges interpreting the same federal law. Even in State court cases which end up with SCOTUS, the state law is being tested against the US constitution.
In this case, it's one court interpreting English law, and one Scottish. And even when the UK Supreme Court hears them, they'll be testing the cases against their respective laws, not "the UK constitution".
One hundred years from now, tourists will still flock to the statue of Jeremy Corbyn, greatest statesman of the 21st Century, or at least the year 2019.
The thing is, the Queen and her people are not idiots. They knew what was going on, and there was even talk that they'd pushed back on what the government was asking for. I do not understand why courts have been hearing these cases. This is politics. Politicians use process for their own ends all the time.
Those MPs who do not like the current government have an obvious course of action for changing the government. It should be up to elected politicians, not judges, to sort this out.
Great, let parliament decide and vote on it.......ah but they are not allowed to sit! Next!
At any time parliament could have passed a bill preventing the prorogation without a vote. But it didn't.
Oh look Boris getting closer to the 40% I predicted @Gallowgate
Trend is downwards though.
You'd expect the combined Brexit/Tory share to trend downward as the Tory share increases right now. The Tories can't take ALL the Brexit votes - some will go to Labour, others will stay home.
The Court of Session has jurisdiction in Scotland. The High Court has jurisdiction in England and Wales. However the judgments of both can be enforced outside their respective jurisdictions (otherwise how would you enforce a cross border debt?) where appropriate. The actions of the Government effect both justifications. Thus cases can be validly brought in either (or, for completeness, in NI).
How hard can this be to understand? There is no jurisdictional issue here.
It is not hard to understand but afaik is not taught at all in English schools, and is not something English people have thought much about. Understanding that in the UK the constitutional law of the 2 million from NI, 5.5 million from Scotland and 54 million in England have equal status will drive English nationalism further.
If it is overturned Scottish nationalism will gain.
Whilst those opposing this shameful government may be momentarily pleased, the likelihood is this decision is likely to be bad for the UK whatever happens, unless the likes of Gavin Barwell do more than tweet their displeasure and take firm action to topple this administration and party leadership.
One court has ruled that the action was not illegal. Another court has reached a different opinion. Both have allowed the Supreme Court to have the final word. Why not allow it to do so rather than relying on one opinion rather than the other to pass judgement in the meantime? Everything else is speculation for now.
As for No 10's comments, they are not without foundation. The practice they are drawing attention to is standard procedure in the US. Lawyers routinely refer national cases to federal courts with known tame judges which are judged most likely to reach a judgement in their favour, based on their past record. The case is then referred up the chain to the Supreme Court on appeal. It is accepted practice in the US, and as a consequence the decisions in the lower courts are of limited political consequence, because people are familiar with the game being played. That is particularly the case where different federal courts have reached contrary opinions on the same case.
Wait, the Supreme Court doesn't have the competency to apply laws of other legal jurisdictions to judgements in Scotland.
Its role in this case is simply to check that Scots Law was properly applied.
Collapse of the Brexit Party vote, Lib-Lab pact even more crucial for Remain cause. Be interesting to see what this latest bombshell does to things, though.
There will be no Lib-Lab pact. They hate Libs more than Tories.
The petitioners chose the Scottish Courts because the Claim of Right gave them slightly more leeway on a few of their points than would be the case south of the border.
It's not impossible for the SC to hear both cases next week and find against Miller and for Cherry, of course. It seems unlikely but *gestures around*
I think this is the point some are missing with this "oh.. the English judges will sort it" schtick. When the Supreme Court hears a Scottish case, it's judging it against Scottish law.
That concept that Boris Johnson is the first Prime Minister who's been judged to have been lying to the monarch is not going to be whitewashed away too easily, whatever happens next.
One court has ruled that the action was not illegal. Another court has reached a different opinion. Both have allowed the Supreme Court to have the final word. Why not allow it to do so rather than relying on one opinion rather than the other to pass judgement in the meantime? Everything else is speculation for now.
As for No 10's comments, they are not without foundation. The practice they are drawing attention to is standard procedure in the US. Lawyers routinely refer national cases to federal courts with known tame judges which are judged most likely to reach a judgement in their favour, based on their past record. The case is then referred up the chain to the Supreme Court on appeal. It is accepted practice in the US, and as a consequence the decisions in the lower courts are of limited political consequence, because people are familiar with the game being played. That is particularly the case where different federal courts have reached contrary opinions on the same case.
The Prime Minister's spokesman is accusing senior Scottish judges of political bias and fails to recognise that Scots law is entirely distinct to English law, while also lying about the High Court decsion last week. The practice you are describing is forum slection, by whch different federal courts intepret the same law in different ways. That is entirely different to what has happened today.
Who would the PCP make leader in Opposition (I assume we'd be looking at a coronation and no membership ballot given the fact an election could be days away?)
Hunt?
Mark Francois.
That would lead to even me quitting the party.
It’s remarkable you are still there, as the only halfway sensible PB Tory who hasn’t left already.
The thing is, the Queen and her people are not idiots. They knew what was going on, and there was even talk that they'd pushed back on what the government was asking for. I do not understand why courts have been hearing these cases. This is politics. Politicians use process for their own ends all the time.
Those MPs who do not like the current government have an obvious course of action for changing the government. It should be up to elected politicians, not judges, to sort this out.
Great, let parliament decide and vote on it.......ah but they are not allowed to sit! Next!
At any time parliament could have passed a bill preventing the prorogation without a vote. But it didn't.
Is that really the case? I dont see why not, but then why didnt they do so?
The thing is, the Queen and her people are not idiots. They knew what was going on, and there was even talk that they'd pushed back on what the government was asking for. I do not understand why courts have been hearing these cases. This is politics. Politicians use process for their own ends all the time.
Those MPs who do not like the current government have an obvious course of action for changing the government. It should be up to elected politicians, not judges, to sort this out.
Er, it is quite important that governments follow the rule of law. The alternative is Robert Mugabeism. Tyranny wrapped in a veil of phoney legitimacy based on rigged elections. Putin is quite fond of this too.
One court has ruled that the action was not illegal. Another court has reached a different opinion. Both have allowed the Supreme Court to have the final word. Why not allow it to do so rather than relying on one opinion rather than the other to pass judgement in the meantime? Everything else is speculation for now.
As for No 10's comments, they are not without foundation. The practice they are drawing attention to is standard procedure in the US. Lawyers routinely refer national cases to federal courts with known tame judges which are judged most likely to reach a judgement in their favour, based on their past record. The case is then referred up the chain to the Supreme Court on appeal. It is accepted practice in the US, and as a consequence the decisions in the lower courts are of limited political consequence, because people are familiar with the game being played. That is particularly the case where different federal courts have reached contrary opinions on the same case.
But in the US, that's different judges interpreting the same federal law. Even in State court cases which end up with SCOTUS, the state law is being tested against the US constitution.
In this case, it's one court interpreting English law, and one Scottish. And even when the UK Supreme Court hears them, they'll be testing the cases against their respective laws, not "the UK constitution".
I doubt whether the UKSC will see fit to split hairs in the same way that Scottish nationalists assume that it should.
The thing is, the Queen and her people are not idiots. They knew what was going on, and there was even talk that they'd pushed back on what the government was asking for. I do not understand why courts have been hearing these cases. This is politics. Politicians use process for their own ends all the time.
Those MPs who do not like the current government have an obvious course of action for changing the government. It should be up to elected politicians, not judges, to sort this out.
Because the entire UK constitution rests on the polite fiction that ultimate authority rests with the monarch who is apolitical. The monarch follows the advice of the Prime Minister which is supposedly given in good faith. When the Prime Minister starts lying to the monarch for political ends the whole thing falls apart.
The thing is, the Queen and her people are not idiots. They knew what was going on, and there was even talk that they'd pushed back on what the government was asking for. I do not understand why courts have been hearing these cases. This is politics. Politicians use process for their own ends all the time.
Those MPs who do not like the current government have an obvious course of action for changing the government. It should be up to elected politicians, not judges, to sort this out.
Great, let parliament decide and vote on it.......ah but they are not allowed to sit! Next!
At any time parliament could have passed a bill preventing the prorogation without a vote. But it didn't.
Is that really the case? I dont see why not, but then why didnt they do so?
The current Speaker of the Commons has been rather accommodating to parliament so I think they could have done so.
One court has ruled that the action was not illegal. Another court has reached a different opinion. Both have allowed the Supreme Court to have the final word. Why not allow it to do so rather than relying on one opinion rather than the other to pass judgement in the meantime? Everything else is speculation for now.
As for No 10's comments, they are not without foundation. The practice they are drawing attention to is standard procedure in the US. Lawyers routinely refer national cases to federal courts with known tame judges which are judged most likely to reach a judgement in their favour, based on their past record. The case is then referred up the chain to the Supreme Court on appeal. It is accepted practice in the US, and as a consequence the decisions in the lower courts are of limited political consequence, because people are familiar with the game being played. That is particularly the case where different federal courts have reached contrary opinions on the same case.
Wait, the Supreme Court doesn't have the competency to apply laws of other legal jurisdictions to judgements in Scotland.
Its role in this case is simply to check that Scots Law was a properly applied.
People need to understand this.
Yeah, the difference in the US is there is one overarching federal legal framework; in the UK there is Scottish Law, English Law and Northern Irish Law. The Supreme Court is fluent in all 3 and must judge cases brought in those jurisdictions against the individual traditions and precedents. There is no one overarching UK law.
Oh look Boris getting closer to the 40% I predicted @Gallowgate
Trend is downwards though.
You'd expect the combined Brexit/Tory share to trend downward as the Tory share increases right now. The Tories can't take ALL the Brexit votes - some will go to Labour, others will stay home.
One hundred years from now, tourists will still flock to the statue of Jeremy Corbyn, greatest statesman of the 21st Century, or at least the year 2019.
You've been smoking those funny ciggies again haven't you?
The thing is, the Queen and her people are not idiots. They knew what was going on, and there was even talk that they'd pushed back on what the government was asking for. I do not understand why courts have been hearing these cases. This is politics. Politicians use process for their own ends all the time.
Those MPs who do not like the current government have an obvious course of action for changing the government. It should be up to elected politicians, not judges, to sort this out.
Great, let parliament decide and vote on it.......ah but they are not allowed to sit! Next!
At any time parliament could have passed a bill preventing the prorogation without a vote. But it didn't.
But that isn't the issue. The court isn't saying that prorogation needs a Parliamentary vote. As I understand it, they are saying that it remains a prerogative power but one which was exercised for an improper purpose.
Personally, I'm not sure the Court of Session is correct, but they are applying existing law, and if that is in fact the correct interpretation of existing law, Parliament had no need to pass legislation on it.
Comments
Not 100% sure what that XXXXX will be but it will sound vaguely coherent.
Fascinating to see what the judgement has revealed in perhaps hitherto unexpressed assumptions.
All stems from a minority government.
But not just yet.
For Downing Street to allege politcal bias in a judicial decision is outrageous. No doubt they would hit the roof if anyone had suggested that was the reason for last weeks decision. What have we come to?.
If they lose in the Supreme Court on Tuesday the government MUST resign and allow an alternative to replace it, for our sysetem of govertnment to have any credence or respect.
In the absence of any UK-wide courts below the Supreme Court, it's just as fair to bring a case under Scottish (or Northern Irish) law for these UK-wide matters as it is to bring one under English law. That's what the Union is about.
https://twitter.com/PeatWorrier/status/1171722924849532928
Mind, from his published sayings I can't think of much, if anything, on which I agree with Francois!
If Boris recalls Parliament this afternoon an VONC himself he might still get his October election?
That would lead to even me quitting the party.
Doubtful if the Gov't loses.
@DJChocolateMLK
6m6 minutes ago
More
Yellowhammer is an anagram of Orwell mayhem.
It's not impossible for the SC to hear both cases next week and find against Miller and for Cherry, of course. It seems unlikely but *gestures around*
Who'd have guessed?
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1171729606480711680?s=20
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1171730033750228993?s=20
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1171731758716506113?s=20
https://twitter.com/telepolitics/status/1171721616344178689?s=21
How hard can this be to understand? There is no jurisdictional issue here.
Those MPs who do not like the current government have an obvious course of action for changing the government. It should be up to elected politicians, not judges, to sort this out.
"As Greek legend tells it, in a bid to regain his freedom and escape the dominion of a foreign land, Icarus took to the sky, borne aloft by hand-made wings fashioned from wood, feathers and wax. But, enticed by the golden glow of the sun, Icarus flew too high. The sun’s heat melted the wax that secured the feathers to his wings. Icarus plummeted into the sea. He drowned in his own tragedy.
It is a morality tale that Nigel Farage would do well to heed. "
As for No 10's comments, they are not without foundation. The practice they are drawing attention to is standard procedure in the US. Lawyers routinely refer national cases to federal courts with known tame judges which are judged most likely to reach a judgement in their favour, based on their past record. The case is then referred up the chain to the Supreme Court on appeal. It is accepted practice in the US, and as a consequence the decisions in the lower courts are of limited political consequence, because people are familiar with the game being played. That is particularly the case where different federal courts have reached contrary opinions on the same case.
If the Number 10 source is right in his/her implication that Scots judges are activist libs with an axe to grind (compared to our proper English judges, aka "enemies of the people"), I'm sure the SC won't take long to bin off the judgment.
It is entirely necessary for Westminster's acts to be legal in all three jurisdictions – that is the awkward truth of a political union. You are governing legally separate nations as one nation.
Mostly, it's fine.
Sometimes, it isn't fine.
Britain has a constitution, albeit an unwritten one (or at least a patchwork of different writings with different legal statuses). And the constitution is justiciable, as it is in all other working democracies.
All this speaks of a need to codify the constitution and address many of these uncertainties, but the idea that there are no legally enforceable rules "coz politics innit" is not correct.
The PM has to act within the law of the land – including the land of Scotland.
In this case, it's one court interpreting English law, and one Scottish. And even when the UK Supreme Court hears them, they'll be testing the cases against their respective laws, not "the UK constitution".
https://twitter.com/samcoatessky/status/1171728144912519168?s=21
If it is overturned Scottish nationalism will gain.
Whilst those opposing this shameful government may be momentarily pleased, the likelihood is this decision is likely to be bad for the UK whatever happens, unless the likes of Gavin Barwell do more than tweet their displeasure and take firm action to topple this administration and party leadership.
Its role in this case is simply to check that Scots Law was properly applied.
People need to understand this.
Would be amusing at the every least.
We'd probably be better off with an SNP government TBH!
A resignation issue for Lord Falconer???
Personally, I'm not sure the Court of Session is correct, but they are applying existing law, and if that is in fact the correct interpretation of existing law, Parliament had no need to pass legislation on it.