Forum Topic

Parliament suspension ruled 'unlawful' in Scotland

It has just been announced that the judges at Scotland’s highest civil court ruled that Johnson's suspension is unlawful.What will this mean in practice?

Ivonne Holliday ● 2618d18 Comments

At this stage, nothing much I suspect. The really decisive hearing will be in the Supreme Court, scheduled (I think) for 17th September).

Richard Carter ● 2618d

Some lawyers are apparently saying parliament is now free to sit and only has to cease sitting if the appeal reverses this decision.

Michael Ixer ● 2618d

News now focussing on whether BJ lied to queen. oh dear.

Peter Miles ● 2618d

Yes, unbelievable really.Just listening to Dominic Grieve who indicated Parliament should reconvene within the next 24 hours.  He also indicated that, if it is proved that Boris Johnson did mislead the Queen, it is a very serious matter indeed.What an unmitigated mess!!

Ivonne Holliday ● 2618d

Probably fake news to some people

Lucille Grant ● 2618d

Probably fake news to some people

Lucille Grant ● 2618d

If, based on their different interpretations of constitutional law, the 'English' Supreme Court overturns the Scottish court, then Scottish independence will take one step closer.

Peter Evans ● 2618d

Yes, I was wondering how this ruling would be taken by the government.Can the "English" Supreme Court overturn the Scottish court?  It would be difficult to understand such opposite interpretations of constitutional law..  But I am not an expert!The other thing that surprised me was that the government's lawyers in the Scottish court did not file an appeal immediately.

Ivonne Holliday ● 2618d

The Supreme Court is not solely concerned with ‘English” judgements.  If you look at its website you will see that its role is as follows:The Supreme Court:is the final court of appeal for all United Kingdom civil cases, and criminal cases from England, Wales and Northern Irelandhears appeals on arguable points of law of general public importanceconcentrates on cases of the greatest public and constitutional importancemaintains and develops the role of the highest court in the United Kingdom as a leader in the common law worldThe Supreme Court hears appeals from the following courts in each jurisdiction:England and WalesThe Court of Appeal, Civil DivisionThe Court of Appeal, Criminal Division(in some limited cases) the High CourtScotlandThe Court of SessionNick

Nicholas Evans ● 2618d

Does this mean the Queen has broken the law???

Bunny Payne ● 2618d

Thank you Nick, very helpful information!I understood there were two separate cases, one in Scotland and the other is the one Gina Miller and others here in London (to be heard/considered on 17 September?)As you say below, the Supreme Court concentrates on cases of the greatest public and constitutional importance and Brexit obviously falls under this category. So, will the Supreme Court in London take into consideration  the ruling by the Scottish judges when considering Gina Miller's case?  If the Supreme Court rules against Gina Miller, will this automatically overturn the Scottish ruling?

Ivonne Holliday ● 2618d

I do not think so Bunny.The Queen took the advice of the Privy Council.  Whether the advice given was correct or not, is another matter. I assume that, if the advice given was incorrect, then the Privy Council should answer to the law?

Ivonne Holliday ● 2618d

Could the Supreme Court issue different rulings for Scotland to that in England & Wales, or Northern Ireland, because of differences in their laws or legal systems ... deep joy! 🙂

Michael Ixer ● 2618d

The mos interesting (!) outcome will be if the Supreme Court upholds the judgement. Then we have the final verdict that the PM lied to the Queen, and as a consequence Parliament was illegally closed.Not a good look for the Tories, party of law and order?

Sean Hodges ● 2618d

A hidden bonus then

Andy Pike ● 2618d

And who put this duff proposal to the Queen? The (parliamentarily horizontal) Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Alexander MacLeod ● 2618d

It's well know that the Queen takes a keen interest in what her Parliament is doing, to suggest she had the wool pulled over her eyes is such an insult.  Parliamentary progroguing is a common thing and if action is being taken against the PM for having suspect reasons, then the other side of the coin is the Opposition is equally or more suspect by bringing these actions, as they patently want to stop Brexit, against the legal majority vote of the country.

Bunny Payne ● 2618d

Proroguing is common Bunny but not for five weeks. It is usually for 1 - 2 weeks and the last time parliament was suspended for a long period was in 1945!Other important Bills need to be debated (it's not all about Brexit) like the  Domestic Violence Bill which will not  not get passed due to running out of time. It is NOT the Opposition who is proroguing, it's due to Boris Johnson who is afraid of Parliament which is hardly surprising  given how  successful he's been so far.  He's cowardly and a disgrace to democracy and Britain is even more a laughing stock than it was  with May at the helm. And no, I don't think Corbyn would do any better.

Lucille Grant ● 2618d