Judges rule Boris Proroguing Parliament is unlawful

originally posted by: seagull
OK, I've got it that he has the right to do this. Now then, I suppose, my next question is are there any guidelines regarding the reasons he may ask the Queen to do this??

If not, I don't see how he's in violation of anything at all... If there are guidelines which has he violated.

I'm still trying to puzzle this out, so be gentle...

No, there are no guidelines at all in law.
Parliament have conventions and rules they follow and they have the processes in place to punish ministers that mislead or lie.
The court has no business in this matter.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: UKTruth

Thats fine, it was 51.9% to remain and 48.1% to leave am not arguing otherwise, they had the majority by 1.9% with a 3.8% margin.

I personally would call that a narrow victory.

Not really interested in getting into a debate about that, this thread is about the Scottish courts ruling not the size of the victory I was merely responding to another member. Wasn't really looking for a winder discussion.

I was just responding to correct your error.

What else is there to discuss about the decision by the pro Remain anti-democratic Scottish court who have no remit to make the judegment they did?

It's completely within their remit.

The case was thrown out in England and here is the judges view:

“The refusal of the courts to review political questions is well established … The prime minister’s decision that parliament should be prorogued at the time and for the duration chosen and the advice given to Her Majesty to do so in the present case were political. They were inherently political in nature and there are no legal standards against which to judge their legitimacy.”

So, if the Scottish court has found those legal standards they should show them.
The court in Scotland enforced their political bias, not the law. - and thus their decision is illegitimate.

The Scottish court has given the reason for its verdict. Final decision will sit with the supreme court but it's certainly within the remit of the Court Of Session to pass this judgment.

A courts remit is the law.
There is no law that has been broken, therefore a ruling of 'unlawful' is illegitmate.
A courthouse is not the place to solve politcial differences.

Summary here

www-scotsman-com.cdn.ampproject.org... arliament-unlawful-1-5002045/amp?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ%3D%3D#aoh=15682268270271&_ct=1568226826855&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.go ogle.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotsman.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fin-full-scottish-court-of-session-rules-boris-johnson-s-su spension-of-parliament-unlawful-1-5002045

Full details on Friday.

Bad link, but I already read their decision. They have not used the law to make their decision - they have used an opinion of motive - when the motive itself is not even part of the law.

From the link.

Lord Drummond Young determined that the courts have jurisdiction to decide whether any power, under the prerogative or otherwise, has been legally exercised. It was incumbent on the UK Government to show a valid reason for the prorogation, having regard to the fundamental constitutional importance of parliamentary scrutiny of executive action.

I am aware of what Lord Drummong Young decided, but he had no remit to make that determination - under the law of our land.

3 of most senior judges in Scotland or random anonymous bloke online?

Who to trust on matters of the law? Hmmmm.

Actually, the law is the arbiter here. Not judges - they apply the laws of the land. If they step beyond that remit, then they are wrong, regardless of their position.
An individual - online or not - should never be judged as having committed an unlawful act when no law has been broken.
If there is a law that has been applied here, then it should be easy to see and read... please provide it.

Basis of the ruling.

ruled that the prime minister's advice could be unlawful if its purpose was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny. That's because parliament's role in scrutinising the government is a central pillar of our constitution, which follows naturally from the principles of democracy and the rule of law.

None of that is law - it is an opinion (a fluffy one at that).
Our Constitution is not a single document - and is not solely law. It includes conventions on how the Cabinet, the Prime Minister, Parliament and the Monarch conduct themselves. Those conventions are not justicable - they are handled by Parliamentary process.

The court has decided that , in this case, it is justicable. That is the point of the ruling.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: UKTruth

Thats fine, it was 51.9% to remain and 48.1% to leave am not arguing otherwise, they had the majority by 1.9% with a 3.8% margin.

I personally would call that a narrow victory.

Not really interested in getting into a debate about that, this thread is about the Scottish courts ruling not the size of the victory I was merely responding to another member. Wasn't really looking for a winder discussion.

I was just responding to correct your error.

What else is there to discuss about the decision by the pro Remain anti-democratic Scottish court who have no remit to make the judegment they did?

It's completely within their remit.

The case was thrown out in England and here is the judges view:

“The refusal of the courts to review political questions is well established … The prime minister’s decision that parliament should be prorogued at the time and for the duration chosen and the advice given to Her Majesty to do so in the present case were political. They were inherently political in nature and there are no legal standards against which to judge their legitimacy.”

So, if the Scottish court has found those legal standards they should show them.
The court in Scotland enforced their political bias, not the law. - and thus their decision is illegitimate.

The Scottish court has given the reason for its verdict. Final decision will sit with the supreme court but it's certainly within the remit of the Court Of Session to pass this judgment.

A courts remit is the law.
There is no law that has been broken, therefore a ruling of 'unlawful' is illegitmate.
A courthouse is not the place to solve politcial differences.

Summary here

www-scotsman-com.cdn.ampproject.org... arliament-unlawful-1-5002045/amp?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ%3D%3D#aoh=15682268270271&_ct=1568226826855&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.go ogle.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotsman.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fin-full-scottish-court-of-session-rules-boris-johnson-s-su spension-of-parliament-unlawful-1-5002045

Full details on Friday.

Bad link, but I already read their decision. They have not used the law to make their decision - they have used an opinion of motive - when the motive itself is not even part of the law.

From the link.

Lord Drummond Young determined that the courts have jurisdiction to decide whether any power, under the prerogative or otherwise, has been legally exercised. It was incumbent on the UK Government to show a valid reason for the prorogation, having regard to the fundamental constitutional importance of parliamentary scrutiny of executive action.

I am aware of what Lord Drummong Young decided, but he had no remit to make that determination - under the law of our land.

3 of most senior judges in Scotland or random anonymous bloke online?

Who to trust on matters of the law? Hmmmm.

Actually, the law is the arbiter here. Not judges - they apply the laws of the land. If they step beyond that remit, then they are wrong, regardless of their position.
An individual - online or not - should never be judged as having committed an unlawful act when no law has been broken.
If there is a law that has been applied here, then it should be easy to see and read... please provide it.

Basis of the ruling.

ruled that the prime minister's advice could be unlawful if its purpose was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny. That's because parliament's role in scrutinising the government is a central pillar of our constitution, which follows naturally from the principles of democracy and the rule of law.

None of that is law - it is an opinion (a fluffy one at that).
Our Constitution is not a single document - and is not solely law. It includes conventions on how the Cabinet, the Prime Minister, Parliament and the Monarch conduct themselves. Those conventions are not justicable - they are handled by Parliamentary process.

The court has decided that , in this case, it is justicable. That is the point of the ruling.

Indeed - they acted illegitimately and at odds with the High Court of England & Wales (which is not subordinate to the Scottish Court of Session)
Courts don't make the law. Anyone who would support them doing so can not possibly realise the danger involved in such a notion.[

The question appears to be quite simple.. Please cite the law that Boris Johnson has broken to be judged as having acted 'unlawfully'.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: UKTruth

Thats fine, it was 51.9% to remain and 48.1% to leave am not arguing otherwise, they had the majority by 1.9% with a 3.8% margin.

I personally would call that a narrow victory.

Not really interested in getting into a debate about that, this thread is about the Scottish courts ruling not the size of the victory I was merely responding to another member. Wasn't really looking for a winder discussion.

I was just responding to correct your error.

What else is there to discuss about the decision by the pro Remain anti-democratic Scottish court who have no remit to make the judegment they did?

It's completely within their remit.

The case was thrown out in England and here is the judges view:

“The refusal of the courts to review political questions is well established … The prime minister’s decision that parliament should be prorogued at the time and for the duration chosen and the advice given to Her Majesty to do so in the present case were political. They were inherently political in nature and there are no legal standards against which to judge their legitimacy.”

So, if the Scottish court has found those legal standards they should show them.
The court in Scotland enforced their political bias, not the law. - and thus their decision is illegitimate.

The Scottish court has given the reason for its verdict. Final decision will sit with the supreme court but it's certainly within the remit of the Court Of Session to pass this judgment.

A courts remit is the law.
There is no law that has been broken, therefore a ruling of 'unlawful' is illegitmate.
A courthouse is not the place to solve politcial differences.

Summary here

www-scotsman-com.cdn.ampproject.org... arliament-unlawful-1-5002045/amp?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ%3D%3D#aoh=15682268270271&_ct=1568226826855&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.go ogle.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotsman.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fin-full-scottish-court-of-session-rules-boris-johnson-s-su spension-of-parliament-unlawful-1-5002045

Full details on Friday.

Bad link, but I already read their decision. They have not used the law to make their decision - they have used an opinion of motive - when the motive itself is not even part of the law.

From the link.

Lord Drummond Young determined that the courts have jurisdiction to decide whether any power, under the prerogative or otherwise, has been legally exercised. It was incumbent on the UK Government to show a valid reason for the prorogation, having regard to the fundamental constitutional importance of parliamentary scrutiny of executive action.

I am aware of what Lord Drummong Young decided, but he had no remit to make that determination - under the law of our land.

3 of most senior judges in Scotland or random anonymous bloke online?

Who to trust on matters of the law? Hmmmm.

Actually, the law is the arbiter here. Not judges - they apply the laws of the land. If they step beyond that remit, then they are wrong, regardless of their position.
An individual - online or not - should never be judged as having committed an unlawful act when no law has been broken.
If there is a law that has been applied here, then it should be easy to see and read... please provide it.

Basis of the ruling.

ruled that the prime minister's advice could be unlawful if its purpose was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny. That's because parliament's role in scrutinising the government is a central pillar of our constitution, which follows naturally from the principles of democracy and the rule of law.

None of that is law - it is an opinion (a fluffy one at that).
Our Constitution is not a single document - and is not solely law. It includes conventions on how the Cabinet, the Prime Minister, Parliament and the Monarch conduct themselves. Those conventions are not justicable - they are handled by Parliamentary process.

The court has decided that , in this case, it is justicable. That is the point of the ruling.

Indeed - they acted illegitimately and at odds with teh High Court of England & Wales.
Courts don't make the law. Anyone who would support them doing so can not possibly realise the danger involved in such a notion.

It was a separate case from the high court case and was not beholden to any previous judgement they made.

It isn't making the law, it interpreting it.That is entirely within the remit of the court.

The US has a much more codified constitution than the UK and still has a supreme court to make rulings. With the UKs constitution we absolutely require courts to maje decisions about the legality or otherwise of the government's actions.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: UKTruth

Thats fine, it was 51.9% to remain and 48.1% to leave am not arguing otherwise, they had the majority by 1.9% with a 3.8% margin.

I personally would call that a narrow victory.

Not really interested in getting into a debate about that, this thread is about the Scottish courts ruling not the size of the victory I was merely responding to another member. Wasn't really looking for a winder discussion.

I was just responding to correct your error.

What else is there to discuss about the decision by the pro Remain anti-democratic Scottish court who have no remit to make the judegment they did?

It's completely within their remit.

The case was thrown out in England and here is the judges view:

“The refusal of the courts to review political questions is well established … The prime minister’s decision that parliament should be prorogued at the time and for the duration chosen and the advice given to Her Majesty to do so in the present case were political. They were inherently political in nature and there are no legal standards against which to judge their legitimacy.”

So, if the Scottish court has found those legal standards they should show them.
The court in Scotland enforced their political bias, not the law. - and thus their decision is illegitimate.

The Scottish court has given the reason for its verdict. Final decision will sit with the supreme court but it's certainly within the remit of the Court Of Session to pass this judgment.

A courts remit is the law.
There is no law that has been broken, therefore a ruling of 'unlawful' is illegitmate.
A courthouse is not the place to solve politcial differences.

Summary here

www-scotsman-com.cdn.ampproject.org... arliament-unlawful-1-5002045/amp?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ%3D%3D#aoh=15682268270271&_ct=1568226826855&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.go ogle.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotsman.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fin-full-scottish-court-of-session-rules-boris-johnson-s-su spension-of-parliament-unlawful-1-5002045

Full details on Friday.

Bad link, but I already read their decision. They have not used the law to make their decision - they have used an opinion of motive - when the motive itself is not even part of the law.

From the link.

Lord Drummond Young determined that the courts have jurisdiction to decide whether any power, under the prerogative or otherwise, has been legally exercised. It was incumbent on the UK Government to show a valid reason for the prorogation, having regard to the fundamental constitutional importance of parliamentary scrutiny of executive action.

I am aware of what Lord Drummong Young decided, but he had no remit to make that determination - under the law of our land.

3 of most senior judges in Scotland or random anonymous bloke online?

Who to trust on matters of the law? Hmmmm.

Actually, the law is the arbiter here. Not judges - they apply the laws of the land. If they step beyond that remit, then they are wrong, regardless of their position.
An individual - online or not - should never be judged as having committed an unlawful act when no law has been broken.
If there is a law that has been applied here, then it should be easy to see and read... please provide it.

Basis of the ruling.

ruled that the prime minister's advice could be unlawful if its purpose was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny. That's because parliament's role in scrutinising the government is a central pillar of our constitution, which follows naturally from the principles of democracy and the rule of law.

None of that is law - it is an opinion (a fluffy one at that).
Our Constitution is not a single document - and is not solely law. It includes conventions on how the Cabinet, the Prime Minister, Parliament and the Monarch conduct themselves. Those conventions are not justicable - they are handled by Parliamentary process.

The court has decided that , in this case, it is justicable. That is the point of the ruling.

Indeed - they acted illegitimately and at odds with teh High Court of England & Wales.
Courts don't make the law. Anyone who would support them doing so can not possibly realise the danger involved in such a notion.

It was a separate case from the high court case and was not beholden to any previous judgement they made.

It isn't making the law, it interpreting it.That is entirely within the remit of the court.

The US has a much more codified constitution than the UK and still has a supreme court to make rulings. With the UKs constitution we absolutely require courts to maje decisions about the legality or otherwise of the government's actions.

Agreed - it's not beholden to the other court, but the case details were actually the same.
No law has been interpreted, hence the court acted illegitimately.

It's precisely BECAUSE the US Constitution & Bill of Rights is 'codified' that the US Supreme Courts (and courts at lower levels in the US) use it underpin judegments. The legal underpinnings of our Constitution are Acts of Parliament. Further elements of our Constituion include PArliamentray conventions, which are not legal concerns.

a reply to: UKTruth

Our constitution isn't just written laws, though. It's also Parliamentary conventions. It's not a convention to close down Parliament and suspend scrutiny of a very important matter only a few weeks before it takes effect. That's what makes it arguably unconstitutional. What body exists to protect our constitution ? It's only the courts.

Listen, I'm trying hard not to mention the B word, I know feelings are high on both sides. If you ignore the B word, I think most reasonable persons would think that Johnson is completely out of order on this one.

originally posted by: TheShippingForecast
a reply to: UKTruth

Our constitution isn't just written laws, though. It's also Parliamentary conventions. It's not a convention to close down Parliament and suspend scrutiny of a very important matter only a few weeks before it takes effect. That's what makes it arguably unconstitutional. What body exists to protect our constitution ? It's only the courts.

Listen, I'm trying hard not to mention the B word, I know feelings are high on both sides. If you ignore the B word, I think most reasonable persons would think that Johnson is completely out of order on this one.

Exactly - our constitution includes law created by Parliamentary Act and Parliamentray conventions which are NOT laws.
A courts remit is the law. The breaking of parliamentray convention is fully punishable by parliamentray process. There is not even a law against lying or misleading members of the House (Fortunately for Boris and every other Minister or Lord).

I DO think that Boris is out of line - Brexit or not. He's just not acting unlawfully.
I would really like Parliament to PASS a law to stop this happening again and bring proper rules and legal structure to Prorogation.
THEN and only then should the courts be involved to arbitrate in such disputes.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: UKTruth

Thats fine, it was 51.9% to remain and 48.1% to leave am not arguing otherwise, they had the majority by 1.9% with a 3.8% margin.

I personally would call that a narrow victory.

Not really interested in getting into a debate about that, this thread is about the Scottish courts ruling not the size of the victory I was merely responding to another member. Wasn't really looking for a winder discussion.

I was just responding to correct your error.

What else is there to discuss about the decision by the pro Remain anti-democratic Scottish court who have no remit to make the judegment they did?

It's completely within their remit.

The case was thrown out in England and here is the judges view:

“The refusal of the courts to review political questions is well established … The prime minister’s decision that parliament should be prorogued at the time and for the duration chosen and the advice given to Her Majesty to do so in the present case were political. They were inherently political in nature and there are no legal standards against which to judge their legitimacy.”

So, if the Scottish court has found those legal standards they should show them.
The court in Scotland enforced their political bias, not the law. - and thus their decision is illegitimate.

The Scottish court has given the reason for its verdict. Final decision will sit with the supreme court but it's certainly within the remit of the Court Of Session to pass this judgment.

A courts remit is the law.
There is no law that has been broken, therefore a ruling of 'unlawful' is illegitmate.
A courthouse is not the place to solve politcial differences.

Summary here

www-scotsman-com.cdn.ampproject.org... arliament-unlawful-1-5002045/amp?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ%3D%3D#aoh=15682268270271&_ct=1568226826855&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.go ogle.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotsman.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fin-full-scottish-court-of-session-rules-boris-johnson-s-su spension-of-parliament-unlawful-1-5002045

Full details on Friday.

Bad link, but I already read their decision. They have not used the law to make their decision - they have used an opinion of motive - when the motive itself is not even part of the law.

From the link.

Lord Drummond Young determined that the courts have jurisdiction to decide whether any power, under the prerogative or otherwise, has been legally exercised. It was incumbent on the UK Government to show a valid reason for the prorogation, having regard to the fundamental constitutional importance of parliamentary scrutiny of executive action.

I am aware of what Lord Drummong Young decided, but he had no remit to make that determination - under the law of our land.

3 of most senior judges in Scotland or random anonymous bloke online?

Who to trust on matters of the law? Hmmmm.

Actually, the law is the arbiter here. Not judges - they apply the laws of the land. If they step beyond that remit, then they are wrong, regardless of their position.
An individual - online or not - should never be judged as having committed an unlawful act when no law has been broken.
If there is a law that has been applied here, then it should be easy to see and read... please provide it.

Basis of the ruling.

ruled that the prime minister's advice could be unlawful if its purpose was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny. That's because parliament's role in scrutinising the government is a central pillar of our constitution, which follows naturally from the principles of democracy and the rule of law.

None of that is law - it is an opinion (a fluffy one at that).
Our Constitution is not a single document - and is not solely law. It includes conventions on how the Cabinet, the Prime Minister, Parliament and the Monarch conduct themselves. Those conventions are not justicable - they are handled by Parliamentary process.

The court has decided that , in this case, it is justicable. That is the point of the ruling.

Indeed - they acted illegitimately and at odds with teh High Court of England & Wales.
Courts don't make the law. Anyone who would support them doing so can not possibly realise the danger involved in such a notion.

It was a separate case from the high court case and was not beholden to any previous judgement they made.

It isn't making the law, it interpreting it.That is entirely within the remit of the court.

The US has a much more codified constitution than the UK and still has a supreme court to make rulings. With the UKs constitution we absolutely require courts to maje decisions about the legality or otherwise of the government's actions.

Agreed - it's not beholden to the other court, but the case details were actually the same.
No law has been interpreted, hence the court acted illegitimately.

It's precisely BECAUSE the US Constitution & Bill of Rights is 'codified' that the US Supreme Courts (and courts at lower levels in the US) use it underpin judegments. The legal underpinnings of our Constitution are Acts of Parliament. Further elements of our Constituion include PArliamentray conventions, which are not legal concerns.

UK courts have power of legal review of actions of the executive.

Not sure where you get idea that courts can't rule on constitutional matters.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: UKTruth

Thats fine, it was 51.9% to remain and 48.1% to leave am not arguing otherwise, they had the majority by 1.9% with a 3.8% margin.

I personally would call that a narrow victory.

Not really interested in getting into a debate about that, this thread is about the Scottish courts ruling not the size of the victory I was merely responding to another member. Wasn't really looking for a winder discussion.

I was just responding to correct your error.

What else is there to discuss about the decision by the pro Remain anti-democratic Scottish court who have no remit to make the judegment they did?

It's completely within their remit.

The case was thrown out in England and here is the judges view:

“The refusal of the courts to review political questions is well established … The prime minister’s decision that parliament should be prorogued at the time and for the duration chosen and the advice given to Her Majesty to do so in the present case were political. They were inherently political in nature and there are no legal standards against which to judge their legitimacy.”

So, if the Scottish court has found those legal standards they should show them.
The court in Scotland enforced their political bias, not the law. - and thus their decision is illegitimate.

The Scottish court has given the reason for its verdict. Final decision will sit with the supreme court but it's certainly within the remit of the Court Of Session to pass this judgment.

A courts remit is the law.
There is no law that has been broken, therefore a ruling of 'unlawful' is illegitmate.
A courthouse is not the place to solve politcial differences.

Summary here

www-scotsman-com.cdn.ampproject.org... arliament-unlawful-1-5002045/amp?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ%3D%3D#aoh=15682268270271&_ct=1568226826855&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.go ogle.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotsman.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fin-full-scottish-court-of-session-rules-boris-johnson-s-su spension-of-parliament-unlawful-1-5002045

Full details on Friday.

Bad link, but I already read their decision. They have not used the law to make their decision - they have used an opinion of motive - when the motive itself is not even part of the law.

From the link.

Lord Drummond Young determined that the courts have jurisdiction to decide whether any power, under the prerogative or otherwise, has been legally exercised. It was incumbent on the UK Government to show a valid reason for the prorogation, having regard to the fundamental constitutional importance of parliamentary scrutiny of executive action.

I am aware of what Lord Drummong Young decided, but he had no remit to make that determination - under the law of our land.

3 of most senior judges in Scotland or random anonymous bloke online?

Who to trust on matters of the law? Hmmmm.

Actually, the law is the arbiter here. Not judges - they apply the laws of the land. If they step beyond that remit, then they are wrong, regardless of their position.
An individual - online or not - should never be judged as having committed an unlawful act when no law has been broken.
If there is a law that has been applied here, then it should be easy to see and read... please provide it.

Basis of the ruling.

ruled that the prime minister's advice could be unlawful if its purpose was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny. That's because parliament's role in scrutinising the government is a central pillar of our constitution, which follows naturally from the principles of democracy and the rule of law.

None of that is law - it is an opinion (a fluffy one at that).
Our Constitution is not a single document - and is not solely law. It includes conventions on how the Cabinet, the Prime Minister, Parliament and the Monarch conduct themselves. Those conventions are not justicable - they are handled by Parliamentary process.

The court has decided that , in this case, it is justicable. That is the point of the ruling.

Indeed - they acted illegitimately and at odds with teh High Court of England & Wales.
Courts don't make the law. Anyone who would support them doing so can not possibly realise the danger involved in such a notion.

It was a separate case from the high court case and was not beholden to any previous judgement they made.

It isn't making the law, it interpreting it.That is entirely within the remit of the court.

The US has a much more codified constitution than the UK and still has a supreme court to make rulings. With the UKs constitution we absolutely require courts to maje decisions about the legality or otherwise of the government's actions.

Agreed - it's not beholden to the other court, but the case details were actually the same.
No law has been interpreted, hence the court acted illegitimately.

It's precisely BECAUSE the US Constitution & Bill of Rights is 'codified' that the US Supreme Courts (and courts at lower levels in the US) use it underpin judegments. The legal underpinnings of our Constitution are Acts of Parliament. Further elements of our Constituion include PArliamentray conventions, which are not legal concerns.

UK courts have power of legal review of actions of the executive.

Not sure where you get idea that courts can't rule on constitutional matters.

They can rule on constitutional matters - those areas that are law.
General conventions are not law - so obviously breaking them is not unlawful.

An exceprt from a good read at the British Library

Another characteristic of the unwritten constitution is the special significance of political customs known as ‘conventions’, which oil the wheels of the relationship between the ancient institutions of state. These are unwritten rules of constitutional practice, vital to our politics, the workings of government, but not committed into law or any written form at all.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: UKTruth

Thats fine, it was 51.9% to remain and 48.1% to leave am not arguing otherwise, they had the majority by 1.9% with a 3.8% margin.

I personally would call that a narrow victory.

Not really interested in getting into a debate about that, this thread is about the Scottish courts ruling not the size of the victory I was merely responding to another member. Wasn't really looking for a winder discussion.

I was just responding to correct your error.

What else is there to discuss about the decision by the pro Remain anti-democratic Scottish court who have no remit to make the judegment they did?

It's completely within their remit.

The case was thrown out in England and here is the judges view:

“The refusal of the courts to review political questions is well established … The prime minister’s decision that parliament should be prorogued at the time and for the duration chosen and the advice given to Her Majesty to do so in the present case were political. They were inherently political in nature and there are no legal standards against which to judge their legitimacy.”

So, if the Scottish court has found those legal standards they should show them.
The court in Scotland enforced their political bias, not the law. - and thus their decision is illegitimate.

The Scottish court has given the reason for its verdict. Final decision will sit with the supreme court but it's certainly within the remit of the Court Of Session to pass this judgment.

A courts remit is the law.
There is no law that has been broken, therefore a ruling of 'unlawful' is illegitmate.
A courthouse is not the place to solve politcial differences.

Summary here

www-scotsman-com.cdn.ampproject.org... arliament-unlawful-1-5002045/amp?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ%3D%3D#aoh=15682268270271&_ct=1568226826855&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.go ogle.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotsman.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fin-full-scottish-court-of-session-rules-boris-johnson-s-su spension-of-parliament-unlawful-1-5002045

Full details on Friday.

Bad link, but I already read their decision. They have not used the law to make their decision - they have used an opinion of motive - when the motive itself is not even part of the law.

From the link.

Lord Drummond Young determined that the courts have jurisdiction to decide whether any power, under the prerogative or otherwise, has been legally exercised. It was incumbent on the UK Government to show a valid reason for the prorogation, having regard to the fundamental constitutional importance of parliamentary scrutiny of executive action.

I am aware of what Lord Drummong Young decided, but he had no remit to make that determination - under the law of our land.

3 of most senior judges in Scotland or random anonymous bloke online?

Who to trust on matters of the law? Hmmmm.

Actually, the law is the arbiter here. Not judges - they apply the laws of the land. If they step beyond that remit, then they are wrong, regardless of their position.
An individual - online or not - should never be judged as having committed an unlawful act when no law has been broken.
If there is a law that has been applied here, then it should be easy to see and read... please provide it.

Basis of the ruling.

ruled that the prime minister's advice could be unlawful if its purpose was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny. That's because parliament's role in scrutinising the government is a central pillar of our constitution, which follows naturally from the principles of democracy and the rule of law.

None of that is law - it is an opinion (a fluffy one at that).
Our Constitution is not a single document - and is not solely law. It includes conventions on how the Cabinet, the Prime Minister, Parliament and the Monarch conduct themselves. Those conventions are not justicable - they are handled by Parliamentary process.

The court has decided that , in this case, it is justicable. That is the point of the ruling.

Indeed - they acted illegitimately and at odds with teh High Court of England & Wales.
Courts don't make the law. Anyone who would support them doing so can not possibly realise the danger involved in such a notion.

It was a separate case from the high court case and was not beholden to any previous judgement they made.

It isn't making the law, it interpreting it.That is entirely within the remit of the court.

The US has a much more codified constitution than the UK and still has a supreme court to make rulings. With the UKs constitution we absolutely require courts to maje decisions about the legality or otherwise of the government's actions.

Agreed - it's not beholden to the other court, but the case details were actually the same.
No law has been interpreted, hence the court acted illegitimately.

It's precisely BECAUSE the US Constitution & Bill of Rights is 'codified' that the US Supreme Courts (and courts at lower levels in the US) use it underpin judegments. The legal underpinnings of our Constitution are Acts of Parliament. Further elements of our Constituion include PArliamentray conventions, which are not legal concerns.

UK courts have power of legal review of actions of the executive.

Not sure where you get idea that courts can't rule on constitutional matters.

They can rule on constitutional matters - those areas that are law.
Gernal conventions are not law - so obviously breaking them is not unlawful.

The ruling was that this was a constitutional matter. Not just a convention

You are completely right, UKTruth. The Scottish judges based their decision NOT on any point of law that the government had broken. It was based entirely on their SUSPICION - yes - suspicion (without supporting evidence) that Boris had prorogued parliament for political reasons. There are two things wrong with this decision:
1. There is NOTHING legally wrong in proroguing for political reasons. As the English judges argued last week, no court has any business deciding on purely political actions; it can decide only on the legality of the decision. There are a number of precedents for political proroguing. Opposition parties may not like it but tough luck - that's politics;
2. No judge should decide on the legality of an action purely on what they SURMISE the intention of Boris Johnson and his government was in proroguing when they did. That is not a decision based upon a point of law; it is one based upon their personal opinions, which should play no part in legal judgements.

This judgement amounts to a political interference by judges based upon their political views, not on issues of law. It is disgraceful, and should be overturned by the Supreme Court.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: UKTruth

Thats fine, it was 51.9% to remain and 48.1% to leave am not arguing otherwise, they had the majority by 1.9% with a 3.8% margin.

I personally would call that a narrow victory.

Not really interested in getting into a debate about that, this thread is about the Scottish courts ruling not the size of the victory I was merely responding to another member. Wasn't really looking for a winder discussion.

I was just responding to correct your error.

What else is there to discuss about the decision by the pro Remain anti-democratic Scottish court who have no remit to make the judegment they did?

It's completely within their remit.

The case was thrown out in England and here is the judges view:

“The refusal of the courts to review political questions is well established … The prime minister’s decision that parliament should be prorogued at the time and for the duration chosen and the advice given to Her Majesty to do so in the present case were political. They were inherently political in nature and there are no legal standards against which to judge their legitimacy.”

So, if the Scottish court has found those legal standards they should show them.
The court in Scotland enforced their political bias, not the law. - and thus their decision is illegitimate.

The Scottish court has given the reason for its verdict. Final decision will sit with the supreme court but it's certainly within the remit of the Court Of Session to pass this judgment.

A courts remit is the law.
There is no law that has been broken, therefore a ruling of 'unlawful' is illegitmate.
A courthouse is not the place to solve politcial differences.

Summary here

www-scotsman-com.cdn.ampproject.org... arliament-unlawful-1-5002045/amp?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ%3D%3D#aoh=15682268270271&_ct=1568226826855&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.go ogle.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotsman.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fin-full-scottish-court-of-session-rules-boris-johnson-s-su spension-of-parliament-unlawful-1-5002045

Full details on Friday.

Bad link, but I already read their decision. They have not used the law to make their decision - they have used an opinion of motive - when the motive itself is not even part of the law.

From the link.

Lord Drummond Young determined that the courts have jurisdiction to decide whether any power, under the prerogative or otherwise, has been legally exercised. It was incumbent on the UK Government to show a valid reason for the prorogation, having regard to the fundamental constitutional importance of parliamentary scrutiny of executive action.

I am aware of what Lord Drummong Young decided, but he had no remit to make that determination - under the law of our land.

3 of most senior judges in Scotland or random anonymous bloke online?

Who to trust on matters of the law? Hmmmm.

Actually, the law is the arbiter here. Not judges - they apply the laws of the land. If they step beyond that remit, then they are wrong, regardless of their position.
An individual - online or not - should never be judged as having committed an unlawful act when no law has been broken.
If there is a law that has been applied here, then it should be easy to see and read... please provide it.

Basis of the ruling.

ruled that the prime minister's advice could be unlawful if its purpose was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny. That's because parliament's role in scrutinising the government is a central pillar of our constitution, which follows naturally from the principles of democracy and the rule of law.

None of that is law - it is an opinion (a fluffy one at that).
Our Constitution is not a single document - and is not solely law. It includes conventions on how the Cabinet, the Prime Minister, Parliament and the Monarch conduct themselves. Those conventions are not justicable - they are handled by Parliamentary process.

The court has decided that , in this case, it is justicable. That is the point of the ruling.

Indeed - they acted illegitimately and at odds with teh High Court of England & Wales.
Courts don't make the law. Anyone who would support them doing so can not possibly realise the danger involved in such a notion.

It was a separate case from the high court case and was not beholden to any previous judgement they made.

It isn't making the law, it interpreting it.That is entirely within the remit of the court.

The US has a much more codified constitution than the UK and still has a supreme court to make rulings. With the UKs constitution we absolutely require courts to maje decisions about the legality or otherwise of the government's actions.

Agreed - it's not beholden to the other court, but the case details were actually the same.
No law has been interpreted, hence the court acted illegitimately.

It's precisely BECAUSE the US Constitution & Bill of Rights is 'codified' that the US Supreme Courts (and courts at lower levels in the US) use it underpin judegments. The legal underpinnings of our Constitution are Acts of Parliament. Further elements of our Constituion include PArliamentray conventions, which are not legal concerns.

UK courts have power of legal review of actions of the executive.

Not sure where you get idea that courts can't rule on constitutional matters.

They can rule on constitutional matters - those areas that are law.
Gernal conventions are not law - so obviously breaking them is not unlawful.

The ruling was that this was a constitutional matter. Not just a convention

You are clearly unaware of what the Constitution of the UK is - and is not.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: UKTruth

Thats fine, it was 51.9% to remain and 48.1% to leave am not arguing otherwise, they had the majority by 1.9% with a 3.8% margin.

I personally would call that a narrow victory.

Not really interested in getting into a debate about that, this thread is about the Scottish courts ruling not the size of the victory I was merely responding to another member. Wasn't really looking for a winder discussion.

I was just responding to correct your error.

What else is there to discuss about the decision by the pro Remain anti-democratic Scottish court who have no remit to make the judegment they did?

It's completely within their remit.

The case was thrown out in England and here is the judges view:

“The refusal of the courts to review political questions is well established … The prime minister’s decision that parliament should be prorogued at the time and for the duration chosen and the advice given to Her Majesty to do so in the present case were political. They were inherently political in nature and there are no legal standards against which to judge their legitimacy.”

So, if the Scottish court has found those legal standards they should show them.
The court in Scotland enforced their political bias, not the law. - and thus their decision is illegitimate.

The Scottish court has given the reason for its verdict. Final decision will sit with the supreme court but it's certainly within the remit of the Court Of Session to pass this judgment.

A courts remit is the law.
There is no law that has been broken, therefore a ruling of 'unlawful' is illegitmate.
A courthouse is not the place to solve politcial differences.

Summary here

www-scotsman-com.cdn.ampproject.org... arliament-unlawful-1-5002045/amp?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQEKAFwAQ%3D%3D#aoh=15682268270271&_ct=1568226826855&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.go ogle.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotsman.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fin-full-scottish-court-of-session-rules-boris-johnson-s-su spension-of-parliament-unlawful-1-5002045

Full details on Friday.

Bad link, but I already read their decision. They have not used the law to make their decision - they have used an opinion of motive - when the motive itself is not even part of the law.

From the link.

Lord Drummond Young determined that the courts have jurisdiction to decide whether any power, under the prerogative or otherwise, has been legally exercised. It was incumbent on the UK Government to show a valid reason for the prorogation, having regard to the fundamental constitutional importance of parliamentary scrutiny of executive action.

I am aware of what Lord Drummong Young decided, but he had no remit to make that determination - under the law of our land.

3 of most senior judges in Scotland or random anonymous bloke online?

Who to trust on matters of the law? Hmmmm.

Actually, the law is the arbiter here. Not judges - they apply the laws of the land. If they step beyond that remit, then they are wrong, regardless of their position.
An individual - online or not - should never be judged as having committed an unlawful act when no law has been broken.
If there is a law that has been applied here, then it should be easy to see and read... please provide it.

Basis of the ruling.

ruled that the prime minister's advice could be unlawful if its purpose was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny. That's because parliament's role in scrutinising the government is a central pillar of our constitution, which follows naturally from the principles of democracy and the rule of law.

None of that is law - it is an opinion (a fluffy one at that).
Our Constitution is not a single document - and is not solely law. It includes conventions on how the Cabinet, the Prime Minister, Parliament and the Monarch conduct themselves. Those conventions are not justicable - they are handled by Parliamentary process.

The court has decided that , in this case, it is justicable. That is the point of the ruling.

Indeed - they acted illegitimately and at odds with teh High Court of England & Wales.
Courts don't make the law. Anyone who would support them doing so can not possibly realise the danger involved in such a notion.

It was a separate case from the high court case and was not beholden to any previous judgement they made.

It isn't making the law, it interpreting it.That is entirely within the remit of the court.

The US has a much more codified constitution than the UK and still has a supreme court to make rulings. With the UKs constitution we absolutely require courts to maje decisions about the legality or otherwise of the government's actions.

Agreed - it's not beholden to the other court, but the case details were actually the same.
No law has been interpreted, hence the court acted illegitimately.

It's precisely BECAUSE the US Constitution & Bill of Rights is 'codified' that the US Supreme Courts (and courts at lower levels in the US) use it underpin judegments. The legal underpinnings of our Constitution are Acts of Parliament. Further elements of our Constituion include PArliamentray conventions, which are not legal concerns.

UK courts have power of legal review of actions of the executive.

Not sure where you get idea that courts can't rule on constitutional matters.

They can rule on constitutional matters - those areas that are law.
Gernal conventions are not law - so obviously breaking them is not unlawful.

The ruling was that this was a constitutional matter. Not just a convention

You are clearly unaware of what the Constitution of the UK is - and is not.

Perfectly well aware and my view is , unlike yours, supported by the current legal position.

originally posted by: micpsi
You are completely right, UKTruth. The Scottish judges based their decision NOT on any point of law that the government had broken. It was based entirely on their SUSPICION - yes - suspicion (without supporting evidence) that Boris had prorogued parliament for political reasons. There are two things wrong with this decision:
1. There is NOTHING legally wrong in proroguing for political reasons. As the English judges argued last week, no court has any business deciding on purely political actions; it can decide only on the legality of the decision. There are a number of precedents for political proroguing. Opposition parties may not like it but tough luck - that's politics;
2. No judge should decide on the legality of an action purely on what they SURMISE the intention of Boris Johnson and his government was in proroguing when they did. That is not a decision based upon a point of law; it is one based upon their personal opinions, which should play no part in legal judgements.

This judgement amounts to a political interference by judges based upon their political views, not on issues of law. It is disgraceful, and should be overturned by the Supreme Court.

You've gone further that I in determining the Scottish Court of Session's motivation - but I concur with your view.

a reply to: ScepticScot

What's 'the current legal position' ?

Deleted, New thread started.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Operation Yellowhammer: Read it and weep.
Operation Yellowhammer

I read it and laughed.
For a worse case scenario, this is very encouraging.


Different thread, I'd suggest.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: ScepticScot

What's 'the current legal position' ?

Do you need to re-read the title of the thread?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: ScepticScot

What's 'the current legal position' ?

Do you need to re-read the title of the thread?

No. The title of the thread is not the current legal position.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: ScepticScot

What's 'the current legal position' ?

Do you need to re-read the title of the thread?

No. The title of the thread is not the current legal position.

Since the government is appealling the decision it certainly seems to think it is.