Back at the Court of Session for the latest Article 50 wranglings; petitioners want the court to use its “nobile officium” power to effectively sign the letter to EU asking for an extension if Boris Johnson refuses to. Expecting today to be brief, main arguments probably Thursday
The main thing I’ve learned from Aidan O’Neill’s submission so far is that nobile officium is pronounced no-beel off-iss-ee-um. Crucially I believe it can also be shortened, in writing, to “nob off”.
Huh. The lawyer representing the uk government - who are opposing an expedited timetable for the case - is pronouncing it “nob-il-ay off-icky-um”. Hoping Lord Pentland can settle this, if nothing else, today
This is very much a procedural hearing, rather than the substantive one; debate as to what time various emails were sent, and how long parties should have to consider submissions
Lawyer for UK govt says she’s not even sure what position her clients would want to take on this, and needs “a bit more time”; “it is simply not realistic to expect the government, on a matter as crucial as this, to provide answers inside 24 hours”
Breaking: Lord Pentland has sided with all the Latin pedants in my mentions, and gone with “nob-eel off-icky-um”. #NobOff
Aidan O’Neill is sticking to his guns with the soft C in officium. He’s arguing that the government has had plenty of time to consider the merits of the case, as the petition was served weeks ago; but he’s “not particularly” opposed to having the substantive hearing on Friday.
Lord Pentland sets the substantive hearing for the “nobile officium” Article 50 case for 11am on Friday. Plan would be for arguments to be heard in court that day, with a judgement hopefully out on Monday.
Each side gets eight pages of A4, double spaced, font size 12 for their notes of argument. And they’ll have two hours each to put them forward on court on Friday.
To be clear, Friday's hearing is an Outer House one, before Lord Pentland. Expecting him to issue a judgement on Monday, and further arguments to be heard in the Inner House thereafter. I *think* the IH hearing will chiefly concern the nobile officium part, and OH other remedies.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
ScotGov has released its external legal advice from the Salmond judicial review. It's basically set out as a timeline of documents; starting from 27 Sept, when counsel were satisfied that most grounds were "weak", but there was "real risk" over the ground of procedural unfairness
However advice changed quickly on 31 October, when the extent of contact between the investigating officer and complainers became clear; Roddy Dunlop QC said he was "very concerned indeed" and said this "presents a very real problem" - adding that IO may have been "not eligible"
Paper trail then jumps forward a month to 6 December, where Roddy Dunlop and Christine O’Neill say that “the ‘least worst’ option would be to concede the petition”. However emails from the following week say the Lord Advocate argued there was “no question” of dropping the case
From independence strategy to trans rights, NEC factionalism to Alex Salmond, the SNP gives every impression of being a party threatening to tear itself apart on the eve of a crucial election.
People will point to the SNP still polling very strongly (and perhaps more to the point, opposition parties very poorly) but there’s an old saying about divided parties not being winners for good reason...and about there only being one poll that matters
In order to turn a majority in the polls into an *actual* majority - particularly in the Holyrood system, which actively discourages them - you need to turn out your base, to get those who say they’d vote for you to actually do it. Infighting *really* doesn’t help with that.
The (virtual) Court of Session will be hearing arguments about whether or not Holyrood can legislate for indyref2 today and tomorrow - case brought by activists like @MartinJKeatings rather than ScotGov, but obvs the ruling could have interesting implications...
As is standard with the Court of Session I don't imagine there will *be* a ruling this week, but the judge says her "intention is to provide an opinion within days rather than weeks"
It's going really well so far anyway, with a row developing between the judge and the QC for the petitioners over the timetable for the hearings which appears to have ended with everyone being muted. So yes, the zoom courtroom has some similarities to your family zoom quiz
Latest in the back and forth between Alex Salmond and the Holyrood inquiry committee - they're now asking if he can come in on February 2nd *at the very latest*. Have also offered 26 January - altho they've also invited Peter Murrell to give further evidence on one of those dates
One minor detail I'd pick out from that letter is the note that committee members "unanimously" agreed to invite Mr Salmond to give evidence on 2 Feb. Perhaps a hint that things have not been entirely unanimous during their deliberations so far...
If they can't come to an agreement, *in theory* the inquiry committee could actually compel Alex Salmond to attend, although I imagine he would be able to produce a "reasonable excuse" what with the whole pandemic thing going on
Figure a lot of people have a lot of questions right now so thought a quick thread signposting to where what info we have is might be helpful...
This is the current law on travel restrictions, in force now. It includes a legal ban on travel between Scotland and the rest of the UK, and in and out of council areas in levels three and four, without a “reasonable excuse” legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2020/344/s…
Again the cross-border travel laws are in force *now* - the plan was they would be relaxed for Christmas, the change is that they now will not. Travel *within* Scotland permitted on Christmas Day - but next day whole mainland goes into L4, which means no movement between councils
MSPs will vote on a motion of no confidence in John Swinney as education secretary today. We already know it'll fail, because the Greens won't back it - so why are the opposition pressing ahead with it? [thread alert] bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla…
While the outcome is obvs the immediately important thing for parents and pupils, politically the narrative is significant too, with an election looming - and ScotGov seem to have successfully seized control of it
Especially with focus now shifting to A-level results down south, with Scotland as a case study in a potential solution which pleases students rather than of the underlying problem, opposition parties can't afford to leave this as essentially a "John Swinney saves the day" story