AS proroguing parliament is unlawful according to the three Scottish judges, parliament must reconvene. If not, then a significant precedent has been set in the conventions of the unwritten Westminster “constitution” and instant prorogation can now be a tool for dictatorial government.
However, a wider question has surely been raised. The role of the monarchy in this matter has been dubious. It seems odd that the monarchy does not have access to independent legal and constitutional advice. The monarch has personal knowledge about the precedents and conventions of parliament and experience of its role in government during her long reign to date.
Yet, after a short visit by three members of her government at Balmoral and on their now “dubious” advice and probably “skewed” reasons, she consented straight away.
Perhaps collusion is a word too far, but it certainly results in the need for more safeguards in the future, assuming the UK has a future, to avoid such decisions taken in secrecy.
The result is now seen that this instant decision at Balmoral has resulted in a collision with the highest courts, the law and the people’s elected representatives. As the monarch is the constitutional head of government and refers in the opening of parliament to “my government”, then we have now a crisis and in many quarters the monarchy can be seen to have blundered in this instance. The constant refrain that the monarch must be shielded from the political process in these issues is utter nonsense.
In this matter the government and the monarchy are implicated. The PM must resign, and the current monarch must abdicate.
John Edgar
Kilmaurs
IT’S emerging that the UK Government did not present an affidavit to the Scottish Court of Session stating the reasons for prorogation. The affidavit wasn’t submitted to the court because no minister was willing to put their name to a document claiming that five weeks of prorogation was for the Queen’s Speech.
Under normal circumstances it should have been a few days, and therefore the court judged that the only logical reason for such a lengthy period was to “stymie” parliament. Since no statement was submitted to the court as to the reasons for prorogation, the judges had no evidence other than arguments from the UK Government’s QC. This would explain the strongly worded finding against the government. The times they are a changing.
Mike Herd
Highland
THE Yellowhammer impact papers are stark. Day-long lorry queues at ports, medical shortages and emptying shelves. The Tories changed the description on the papers from “base scenario” to “worst-case scenario”.
Although some medications have been stockpiled, others can’t be. Sodium valporate, which is used to treat epilepsy, can’t be stockpiled. The supply chain for the medication is vulnerable to disruption.
Johnson claimed when Yellowhammer was first leaked that it was from the time of Theresa May. This was a lie. These estimates come from the first week of Boris Johnson’s premiership.
On top of that, Boris Johnson has been forced to deny he lied to the Queen over proroguing Parliament. Johnson also said the High Court in England had agreed with his proroguing of Parliament. The reality is that they said they should not judge such matters.
The Yellowhammer impact papers completely ignore the impact of the Tory plans for post-Brexit Britian. Massive tax cuts for the Tory donor bankers, wholesale destruction of trade union rights and the setting up of exploitative free ports. This will destroy the living standards of working people.
There is talk of 50,000 soldiers being deployed, backed up by 10,000 riot police. The scenarios set out in Yellowhammer mean that normal forms of rule can’t be maintained. It’s very likely the government has kept some of its scenarios surrounding Brexit secret.
Alan Hinnrichs
Dundee
DOES Scotland have unfinished business? Next week will mark five years since the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, and five years of political turmoil has followed. The 2014 referendum saw Scotland narrowly vote to remain part of the UK as a result of many promises from both sides of the equation, one of which is so relevant in today’s political climate: vote to remain part of the UK and secure Scotland’s place in the EU!
Since 2014 we have had two General Elections when Scotland sent a clear message to the Westminster Parliament by electing a majority of SNP MPs. Scotland went to the polls again this year, returning a majority of SNP MEPs. The SNP has held the administration at Holyrood for 12 years, all indicating a clear pattern emerging since 2014. Yet Scotland is currently governed by a Westminster Conservative government with the assistance of the DUP. This government take no cognisance of Scotland voting to remain in the EU and have afforded no place for the Scottish Government at the EU negotiation table.
The political arrogance of the Conservative back-benchers at Westminster is breathtaking and has brought the country to breaking point, yet they have no plan for exiting the EU with a deal and no vision for the country’s future. The current crisis, with threats of food and medical shortages and job security under threat, certainly brings my initial question back to the top of the agenda. Does Scotland have unfinished business from 2014? If so, perhaps the next question should be “is there any good reason for Scotland to remain in the UK?”
Catriona C Clark
Falkirk
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel