I just want to clarify something important about the Section 30 case - and let me make this one clear! There seems to be a serious misconception by politicians and pundits alike that the Scottish Government is a "target" in the case. THIS IS NOT TRUE.
There's no section in a summons of this nature for putting parties that "might have an interest" in the case. Therefore they have to be listed under "defenders". The part of the summons called the "condescendence" then states why they were listed. It is then up to...
...those parties to state whether they do or they don't want to take part in the proceedings.
In the case of the "Scottish Ministers" (Scotgov) and the "Lord Advocate" they were listed as a matter of PRECEDENCE.
In the case of the "Scottish Ministers" (Scotgov) and the "Lord Advocate" they were listed as a matter of PRECEDENCE.
Indeed, we spell it out in the very first paragraph of the condescendence in the court summons. 
It is/was the choice of the Lord Advocate on behalf of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Minister if they want to participate or not. Indeed the Scottish Ministers have exercised the right not to be part of it (although they could have decided that quicker).
So if anyone tries to tell you the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliament were "targets" in this action, that's just not true. The were "commissioned" for any interest they might have i.e. INVITED to take part. If they did or didn't, was ultimately THEIR choice.
Why? Because it is legal precedence to invite the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament into proceedings which might affect the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Government.
Here's a copy of the email I sent to the backers which explains exactly the same above but phrased differently:
r.mail.crowdjustice.co.uk/mk/mr/x2BT6aAH…
r.mail.crowdjustice.co.uk/mk/mr/x2BT6aAH…
