This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36520856
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| IndyCamp group case rejected by 144 lawyers, court hears | |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| Independence campaigners have told a Scottish judge they asked 144 solicitors to take on their case - but all of them said no. | |
| The group was in court to give updates on whether they had found a lawyer to fight eviction from outside Holyrood. | |
| The Scottish Parliament has taken legal action against the IndyCamp group to oust them from the land they occupy. | |
| A date has yet to be set for a full hearing, but the judge previously gave the campers more time to find a lawyer. | |
| In May, he warned them he would want a detailed update on their efforts, and slammed them for "wasting time" the court's time. | |
| The camp was set up on the parliamentary estate in November 2015, with the IndyCamp group stating their intention to remain in place until Scotland is independent. | The camp was set up on the parliamentary estate in November 2015, with the IndyCamp group stating their intention to remain in place until Scotland is independent. |
| The parliament's corporate body moved to have the group removed, arguing that they are taking up space without permission and could be compromising the political neutrality of the campus. | The parliament's corporate body moved to have the group removed, arguing that they are taking up space without permission and could be compromising the political neutrality of the campus. |
| At a previous hearing, the group put forward arguments based on the Declaration of Arbroath and the 1707 Treaty of Union, questioning the legitimacy of the parliament and its right to hold land. | At a previous hearing, the group put forward arguments based on the Declaration of Arbroath and the 1707 Treaty of Union, questioning the legitimacy of the parliament and its right to hold land. |
| Judge Lord Turnbull rejected all of these points, but said he wanted to hear more from the parliament's lawyers as to why eviction was a "proportionate" response, specifically in light of the European Convention on Human Rights. A date is yet to be fixed for this hearing, which would see evidence put forward and witnesses led. | Judge Lord Turnbull rejected all of these points, but said he wanted to hear more from the parliament's lawyers as to why eviction was a "proportionate" response, specifically in light of the European Convention on Human Rights. A date is yet to be fixed for this hearing, which would see evidence put forward and witnesses led. |
| On 27 May, at the Court of Session, the group asked for four weeks to find a human rights lawyer to represent them. | |
| Lord Turnbull accepted this, but warned that he would want to hear "chapter and verse" about their progress, having criticised them for causing a "complete and utter waste of time" in court previously. | Lord Turnbull accepted this, but warned that he would want to hear "chapter and verse" about their progress, having criticised them for causing a "complete and utter waste of time" in court previously. |