ZZ.,Thank you for your reply,
I do see where you are coming from, but ‘naturally’ disagree, in that each of the cases revolves around prorogation which I think we have established is clearly a political matter, and in the gift of the Head of State, as advised ( not just by ) her Prime Minister – reasons for and length of are political matters!
In giving a judgement, the Court in Scotland must therefore have based their decision on the opinion that prorogation is not in fact just a political matter, and that they therefore could involve the court.
In making this judgement ( which should be put aside on appeal to the Supreme Court although I note the 50/50 thoughts ) and involving the Scottish Court , not only have they gone against the opinion of both the English and NI courts, they have branded the Prime Minister a liar, in that ‘once again, in their opinion , the PM had lied to the Head of State in order to secure her approval for the prorogation (but there is no proof of this , as it was a private meeting between the Privy Council and the Queen , nor I accept is there no denial ,but accusations alone are insufficient to make a judgement ) and further, that this unproven accusation was in order to reduce the time available for Parliament to debate ‘a no deal Brexit ‘ – well, that is also ‘very clearly’ a political matter, and therefore no business whatsoever of the courts.
That everyone knows the reason for proroguing is clearly not a fact, we all have an opinion true, and we all I think are of ‘the opinion ‘ that Politicians lie through their teeth as easily as breathing, I certainly am, and have been for many years since providing evidence/information to them ( all parties, without exception ) at meetings in private offices , the dining rooms, and in the Committee Rooms back in the days of yore, but again this is my jaundiced opinion , not proof.
My objection to the Court Cases is that it appears that the Courts are allowing any individual the right to challenge the Government in Court on any matter that he or she disagrees with, but my main argument in this whole sorry affair is ‘that it all matters regarding prorogation are political, and it therefore follows that the Scottish Court interfered in a political matter ‘, over which they have no jurisdiction’ , but only time and legal opinion of course will prove me right or wrong, and I also challenge the expression ‘the law is the law’ , and ask the question ‘what law’ has been broken ?
Good to debate this with you!