Read on Twitter
It is historically significant.
This thread is about the Court Case, what it means and why it should succeed. For some reason itâs under the radar, but expect it to be big news when it eventually comes to Trial.
This thread is about the Court Case, what it means and why it should succeed. For some reason itâs under the radar, but expect it to be big news when it eventually comes to Trial.
If you want to follow the progress, you should follow @PeoplesAS30. This thread is a lay-explanation of the case so far. Itâs my own views. Iâve only studied law in England, so my terminology will probably be wrong. This is watered down significantly.
*Who*
The case is brought by Martin James Keatings, who is the Convenor of Forward as One. Proceedings were commenced by way of a Summons in the Court of Session. Here is the first page. You can see the Defendants listed underneath. Balfour & Manson LLP act for the Pursuer.
The case is brought by Martin James Keatings, who is the Convenor of Forward as One. Proceedings were commenced by way of a Summons in the Court of Session. Here is the first page. You can see the Defendants listed underneath. Balfour & Manson LLP act for the Pursuer.
*What for*
The Summons (the formal document setting out the basis for the Order sought) want the Court to grant an Order that the Scottish Parliament can legislate to hold a referendum without permission from Westminster. The relief sought is set out here.
The Summons (the formal document setting out the basis for the Order sought) want the Court to grant an Order that the Scottish Parliament can legislate to hold a referendum without permission from Westminster. The relief sought is set out here.
*How*
Where the law is unclear, anyone can apply to Court for a declaration on the true meaning of a piece of law. Where there are conflicting readings the Court can make an Order saying which one is correct. Paragraphs 3-6 explain why the Pursuer is entitled to bring the case.
Where the law is unclear, anyone can apply to Court for a declaration on the true meaning of a piece of law. Where there are conflicting readings the Court can make an Order saying which one is correct. Paragraphs 3-6 explain why the Pursuer is entitled to bring the case.
*Background*
Paragraphs 7-10 set out the background to the Act of Union, and the main piece of relevant legislation which governs the operation of the Scottish Parliament - the Scotland Act 1998. The 1998 Act is absolutely Central to the issue, and is the focus of the case.
Paragraphs 7-10 set out the background to the Act of Union, and the main piece of relevant legislation which governs the operation of the Scottish Parliament - the Scotland Act 1998. The 1998 Act is absolutely Central to the issue, and is the focus of the case.
*Can Scottish Parliament hold a referendum*
The Scottish Parliament ("SP") can do anything that isnât "reserved" to Westminster. So, there is no list of everything that SP can do. Instead, there is a list of what it canât do. This is called Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act.
The Scottish Parliament ("SP") can do anything that isnât "reserved" to Westminster. So, there is no list of everything that SP can do. Instead, there is a list of what it canât do. This is called Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act.
You often hear journalists say "the Constitution is reserved". It isnât. Some aspects of the constitution are reserved. Take a look at the legislation here:
You will see that "the following aspects" are reserved. That doesnât mean everything. If I say "I hate the following aspects of my garden: the pond and the fence" I am clearly not saying I hate all of my garden. So *some* aspects are reserved.
So what is reserved? Which aspects. Well, itâs "The Union between the Kingdom of England and Scotland". Thatâs all. "The Union". So we know that actually dissolving the Union is reserved. But what about holding a referendum?
Does that mean that anything aimed at testing opinion on the question of the Union is reserved? No. It doesnât say "matters relating to the Union". It says "The Union".
A referendum does not automatically cause the Union to end. Itâs advisory. So the argument is that it cannot possibly be caught by sch5(1).
This argument is put much better at paragraphs 14 and 15. Take a look. The Unionists say that anything which "relates to a reserved matter" is reserved. But the law doesnât say that. It doesnât say that everything "related to the Union" is reserved.
Lord MacKay came to this conclusion. Take a look below. This is clearly the more convincing argument, and itâs the one made at paragraph 14 of the Summons. Lord MacKay was a Tory btw.
Paragraph 16 hits the nail on the head. This is all about statutory interpretation. If the law meant to reserve "matters relating to the Union", why doesnât it just bloody say that!? Well...because Parliament didnât intend the legislation to do this.
*The Scottish Government and the need for a Ruling*
Paragraph 18 explains why an Order/Ruling is necessary. Both arguments cannot be right, and one must prevail. That is why the final Plea is for the Court to resolve the question.
Paragraph 18 explains why an Order/Ruling is necessary. Both arguments cannot be right, and one must prevail. That is why the final Plea is for the Court to resolve the question.
*Next Steps*
The Scottish Government and U.K. Government have responded to the Summons, but their actual response is confidential at this time. We will have to wait for the final hearing and the Court of Session to make a Judgment.
The Scottish Government and U.K. Government have responded to the Summons, but their actual response is confidential at this time. We will have to wait for the final hearing and the Court of Session to make a Judgment.
Once that happens, it will (either way) inevitably end up in the UKSC.
*Conclusion*
Very brief overview of the publicly available documents. Just wanted to write about it because itâs not had enough attention and I think the organisation behind it is awesome.
Very brief overview of the publicly available documents. Just wanted to write about it because itâs not had enough attention and I think the organisation behind it is awesome.
All Credit to Martin J Keatings of course, the person behind it.
https://twitter.com/davidhulmecldwl/status/1216525603664531456?s=21
I">https://twitter.com/davidhulm... wrote about this in January. https://twitter.com/davidhulmecldwl/status/1216525603664531456">https://twitter.com/davidhulm...
I">https://twitter.com/davidhulm... wrote about this in January. https://twitter.com/davidhulmecldwl/status/1216525603664531456">https://twitter.com/davidhulm...
I said "studied law" I canât stress enough that Iâm not an expert, I donât have a degree in it and Iâve just dabbled as a minor subject/course etc. Not my field. Iâm not a lawyer or anywhere close. Just correcting that in case anyone accuses me of pretending.
