Thread by @MartinJKeatings

I just want to clarify something about the #peoplesas30 because of a misconception. I've seen quite a few posts saying that the case, if lost, would be detrimental to the cause. It can't be and here's the reason why.

THE UK GOVERNMENT ADVANCED NO ARGUMENT AGAINST OUR OPINION.

What I mean by "opinion" is the original legal opinion written by Aidan O'neill QC that says that the Scottish Parliament already has the power to legislate for a referendum. The UK Government has advanced no argument against it.

The only arguments that the UK Government have advanced is against the right of the electorate to ask a perfectly legitimate question like this.

This is why anyone who reads the pleas in law, will notice two words in what we've asked the court to rule on. These words are "de plano". De plano translates as "without argument. by manifest right". It's a way of saying "by default".

When someone doesn't submit arguments against your position, it is the same as acquiescing to it. All we need to do is get over the hurdle of what they have argued, none of which actually touches on the question of the powers of the Scottish Parliament.

The worst-case scenario is, therefore, that we don't have the question answered which leaves the door wide open for them to go through with their plan of bating the UK Gov into challenging their bill (a plan which I have raised concerns about and won't rehash).

And just for the record here. If it were to transpire that we didn't get over the hurdle. All of the research and the paperwork and the precedents and the legal opinions we've built this last year are all things which the SNP could actually use.

In other words, none of what we have done would go to waste, it would only serve to reinforce their case if that were to happen.

Conversely, however, if we win - then by establishing that the Scottish Parliament has the power to legislate we establish the legitimacy of the bill that the SNP propose, which means when they go to pass it. The UK Gov has nothing to contest. So no need for the SNP to fight.

These are facts so indisputable that even the BBCs own court reporter has admitted them.

In other words - we lose, we've advanced the cause. We win, we've most definitely advanced the cause.

The problem is that to explain things, in this case, takes very long threads like this for even the smallest point. For the opposition to undermine it, it takes less than 240 characters. Because none of the context or background is in their tweets.

Just think about 2014. Exactly the same thing. We had very good explanations to the questions surrounding indy. The problem is that the opposition spent all of their time spouting the same 10 stupid questions.

We would spend time answering those questions fully, meanwhile, the unionists had already spouted the same rubbish in a tweet to 5 more people. Which we then answered and by the time we were done, they'd moved on to 10 more people.

Also, the fact that the UK Government have relied solely on technicalities rather than actually answering the opinion that the Scottish Parliament already has the power to legislate - that should speak volumes. Because the only time you don't argue against something....

....and argue the technicalities is when you know if the substance is ever heard - you'll lose.

Oh! And separate to the debate on independence and the powers of Scotparl is the question of public law and transparency in this country. Something which has been too closed off for too long and only recently has become more expansive.

Cases like Axa, Walton, Somerville, Cherry and Wightman have all had a net beneficial effect of opening access to justice. In a lot of those cases, the QC has been....you guessed it...Aidan O'Neill!

So this case is as much about the general electorate having the right to ask reasonable questions about their own government and parliamentary institutions as it is about independence.

One important point to make is that all of the points on standing i.e Academic, Premature etc are all points that the UK Government (and the Lord Advocate) have continued to use despite precedents in Axa and Walton etc which were supposed to have stopped this gubbins.

But yet they continue to argue them - which is nothing more than the Government spending your money to delay a case by arguing minutia which they know has already been clarified.

The other fact about a lot of these cases is that they needed to goto a higher authority (Inner house of the court of session, UKSC, Europe) for them to be fully clarified. Almost all failed to get resolution at the first stage.

I hope this clarifies things, but if anyone has any questions, I'm only a tweet away.