Thread by @jonworth

A Q to the excellent lawyers I follow here @WomaninHavana @GeorgePeretzQC @carlgardner @JMPSimor @seanjonesqc @justinbates28 @rowena_kay @JolyonMaugham

I can find one interpretation of why the judges in the Cherry case concluded differently to the Miller case in England

That is @davidallengreen’s point on the different way constitutional matters are dealt with in Scottish law

DAG also underlined the importance of the missing witness statement in *both* cases

But other than the different way constitutional matters are dealt with in Scottish law, is there anything *else* in terms of the evidence presented or the way the case was argued that additionally contributed to the success in Scotland?

Any light you can shed on that - for this non-lawyer - would be fantastic. And might also be of use more widely!