My timeline's going to be busy today. For our viewing delectation, we have: Parliament eating itself to prove pundit spin about Boris & coups; the latest Gina Miller "Only I know what's Best for Britain" love-in, & the appeal to Scotland's Inner House about Boris's prorogue.
Up in Scotland, they've kicked off early & counsel for the plaintiffs (Jo Maugham, Joanna Cherry + 70ish others) is waxing lyrical about the Government providing them with redacted documents. GDPR/National Security clearly not an issue for them, then.
Meanwhile, back in London, Shami Chakrabati (she of the dodgy Labour anti-semitism report which bought her a peerage) has arrived. She's an intervenor, somebody deemed to have an interest in the case with a perspective that impacts the arguments. Written submission only, though.
Up in Scotland, counsel for the Govt is explaining the redactions - redacted parts not relevant, documents produced as part of "duty of candour" only, minutes should be confidential. QC for various media outlets, including BBC, not impressed with argument, wants full disclosure.
London, & counsel for Miller et al starting off with the history of prorogation over the past 40 years, how HMG proroguing is an unlawful abuse of power, because it stops Parliament from stopping #Brexit. Going for the procedural points, rather than political.
Back in Scotland, judges have postponed decision on the documents until after they've heard the substantive arguments. Nice try, in other words.
Meanwhile in London, plaintiffs' QC citing the documents under discussion in Scottish case, claims PM doesn't understand constitutional role of Parliament, thus advice to HM was abuse of power. Court has power/duty to stop PM in this matter.
Up in Scotland, counsel for plaintiffs is also going for the "shocking abuse of power" card. You'd have thought that had been quashed yesterday, but apparently Lord Doherty got it wrong. Can't help thinking there's a lot of assumptions being made about constitutional powers.
Over in London, plaintiffs' QC is working his way through his skeleton argument, backed up by what one can only assume are a large number of written submissions. First, Parliamentary sovereignty = fundamental UK constitution principle (quotes previous Miller case).
Plaintiffs' QC: rule of law & parliamentary sovereignty enforced by courts. Prorogation can impede parliamentary sovereignty, courts can rule on breach of law. PM not provided justification for length of prorogation so abused powers. Seems proroguing fine, just not for 5 weeks.
Plaintiffs' QC now arguing that court has jurisdiction over prerogative powers; monarch could use personal prerogative to dissolve Parliament (different from proroguing) until FTPA 2011. Orders made by monarch on Privy Council advice (e.g. prorogue) can be subject to court ruling
Meanwhile, Jo Johnson has quit, as both MP & government minister. Clearly can't reconcile his support for a second referendum with his brother's direction of travel.
Interestingly, *both* Scottish & London cases' counsels for the plaintiffs now using the "proroguing justiciable, treat with caution, impedes Parliament's ability to stop #Brexit" approach. Was the Scottish junior counsel checking Twitter feeds during their break earlier?
In Scotland, plaintiffs' counsel obsessing over documents. Specifically redactions & lack of affadavits from PM & da Costa. Judge had to tell him Scottish courts different, less affadavits. Counsel now running with London's "PM gave no justification" line.
In London, plaintiffs' QC winds up his submission; disagrees with Scottish verdict currently being appealed. There's a surprise. Over to the Government QC, who starts with PM's decision to prorogue not being subject to court ruling; focus on specific issue rather than generality
Back in Scotland, and the counsel for the plaintiffs is going for ad hominems. References to media hit pieces on BoJo, euphemisms for "liar" etc. Still obsessing about redactions. Not sure the crowdfunding money was well spent, if this is the result.
Scottish proceedings dragging on, meanwhile London's off to lunch. London Govt's QC closed pre-lunch session with "prorogation = inherently political"; unconstitutional for courts to decide lawfulness of political decision.
@threadreaderapp unroll please
And we're back from lunch. Scotland: It's all about Brexit. Boris's "We're leaving on 31 October one way or another" means proroguing needs better evidence which court doesn't have. London: Courts shouldn't rule on political matters e.g. legislative agenda, parl sittings etc.
It's still going strong in Scotland. Now we've got the QC for the Lord Advocate, Scottish Govt's chief legal officer, weighing in against the UK Govt. Prorogation takes away accountability to Parliament. Court needs to decide whether *this* prorogation is unlawful.
Whereas in London, plaintiffs' QC is back (Govt QC completed submissions) wants court to declare that 5-week prorogation is an abuse of power. Then Boris would need to repeal & re-prorogue. No indication what plaintiffs would do if he went for same/longer period. Court rises.
Finally, in Scotland, the counsel for the Govt is up. Essentially same as the London QC. Proroguing is a political decision, part of legislative agenda, not something for courts to rule on.
London: Court adjourns til 10am tomorrow. Assumption losing side will appeal immediately
London: Court adjourns til 10am tomorrow. Assumption losing side will appeal immediately
The Scottish Inner House released the redacted Govt documents yesterday. When you look at some of the passages, you wonder what the fuss was about. Ordinary Cabinet business spun as devious coup-spawning shenanigans. 
[via @FaisalIslam]
[via @FaisalIslam]
@faisalislam More pages of the minutes:
@faisalislam Wrapping up, both Scottish & London courts have disappointed the plaintiffs. Gina will be appealing to the Supreme Court; final decision still to be announced in Scotland, but no interim order to block prorogation.
