Scotland rules prorogue 'unlawful'

[cheesytoasties]

www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/11/scottish-judges-rule-boris-johnsons-prorogation-unlawful

We are living in crazy times.

The Queen rules Scotland as well as England.

Now there's a thing. Strictly speaking, as I understand it, the Queen does not RULE Scotland. She is our Queen. Queen of Scots. Not Queen of Scotland. The sovereignty in Scotland resides in the people not the monarchy. It's complex but if we get fed up with her and she starts doing stuff contrary to the wishes of the people of Scotland we can get ourselves a new queen - or king.

wingsoverscotland.com/weekend-sovereignty-for-dummies/

The Queen reigns. She does not rule.

On Radio 4 they interviewed more than one expert, ex-privy council member/ appeal judge who told them that the judgement in Edinburgh had one major flaw. The PM does not advise the Queen with regard to Propogueing Parliament. Propogueration is a very formal matter when it comes to the Queen meeting the Privy Council. All they are required to do is recite a statement that asks the Queen to prorogue parliament and the Queen agrees. There is no question of the PM giving the queen advice so the Scottish Court are wrong in their assertion that the PM has mislead the Queen.

On Radio 4 they interviewed more than one expert, ex-privy council member/ appeal judge who told them that the judgement in Edinburgh had one major flaw.

A lawyers opinion is just that - a lawyers opinion.

cf. "the only poll that matters is the election".

Primary purpose of government is to preserve democracy.

Given that @MysteryTripAgain has stated in another thread that they believe the UK electoral system is democratic when they get what they want but undemocratic when they don't, that presumably means the purpose of government is to give MysteryTripAgain what they want.

Mother of all dragons, the point is that the Queen usually Prorogues parliament ever year or so, so has done it a whole load of times. It's been done since Norman times and there are set words used and the queen has a set reply. Prorogueration in normal times doesn't need discussion so none will have been used. It's so ceremonial that everyone stands so as not to take too long. The expert asked is a lord who used to be a privy councillor so went to ask the queen to prorogue on a regular basis. So I don't think the experts are out of touch at all.

Her or she also said that Filipinos can earn earn almost £2000 per month by posting on social media apparently. Big money compared to local wages and its cash in hand

@prettybird - Her or she also said that Filipinos can earn earn almost £2000 per month by posting on social media apparently. Big money compared to local wages and its cash in hand

True. That would go a long way towards paying for an actual legal degree. Which would help if you worked in legal.

Pumkinspicetime many thanks, I'm feeling dimmer by the day as this goes on...!

To be fair mother - I just said that it wasn't necessarily agreed by the Scottish Government - but given that all the devolved powers are the gift of WM, there wasn't much that could be done about it when it was set up. I don't think that the Scottish Government would argue against the Supreme Court judgement per se if it goes against the Court of Session - but it would certainly add to the legitimate sense of grievance.

They'd better make sure that there is at least one Scottish Law Lord on the Supreme Court panel that is sitting on Tuesday

Does anyone know what the possible implications would be of this if BJ loses on appeal?

It means that Parliament will resume its sessions. It was due to rise anyhow on 14 September. If ruled unlawful, then it resumes on 9 October; if lawful then on 14 October.

I don't think anyone has yet planned what Parliament might actually do on the extra 5 days.

I think they have a bit of a constitutional crisis on their hands with either decision.
As the more senior court they have every right to overturn the decision.

My brother has just texted me to say that the supreme court wouldn't dare override the court of session because of the constitutional crisis that would ensue.

I would be very concerned if the Supreme Court allowed anything other than the strict rule of law to be applied when determining a case. It would be more of a constitutional crisis if the UK Supreme Court felt obliged to uphold the Courts of Session verdict because of potential political ramifications!

And I say this hoping the Supreme Court will agree with the Court of Session.

Assessing the legitimacy of a court based on whether you agree with its verdict undermines the rule of law... and nothing should ever do that.

"Was it due to rise on the 14th September!"

Yes. Sessions of Parliament are published well in advance.

House rises 14 Sept for conferences, resumes 9 October. These dates are agreed a year or two ahead. There has been no move to change this year's dates, by cancelling or shortening the conference season recess.

Prorogation added 4 days to the start of the existing recess (two have happened, and two seem inevitable now) and 5 to the end of it (which will only happen if found lawful at the Supreme Court)

Which select committees would continue to sit? I know in theory they could continue, but given the overlap of other (ie conference) commitments from members of the various parties, I though in practice nothing ever happened.

No but one would assume in the absence of bias the decision would be the same.

You could say the exactly same about the decision of the English High Court last week that rules that prorogation was lawful.

The MPs were going to vote on whether to recess for conference or not. It wasn't a definite that it would rise then.

Also, rising for conference isn't proroguing. Business can and does continue during conference season. So the 4 day thing is, frankly, utter leaver hogwash.

• Oakenbeach - you say this I would be very concerned if the Supreme Court allowed anything other than the strict rule of law to be applied when determining a case

Are you suggesting the court of session did something else?*

I read it as her saying that the Supreme Court needs to just look at the facts in front of them and not consider the political ramifications.
I don't think she was saying the court of session was biased either.
I wouldn't assume the decision would automatically be the same. The Supreme Court presumably has to give Scots and English law the same weight and they have reached different decisions to date.
(But I am not a lawyer and happy to stand corrected)