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 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49550874

The article has changed 9 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Brexit: Scottish court begins hearing Parliament shutdown challenge Brexit: Scottish court begins hearing Parliament shutdown challenge
(32 minutes later)
A judge in Edinburgh has begun hearing arguments over the prime minister's plan to shut down the UK Parliament.A judge in Edinburgh has begun hearing arguments over the prime minister's plan to shut down the UK Parliament.
A cross-party group of parliamentarians wants a ruling at the Court of Session that Boris Johnson is acting illegally.A cross-party group of parliamentarians wants a ruling at the Court of Session that Boris Johnson is acting illegally.
The UK government is opposing the move, and argues it acted within its powers by seeking to prorogue Parliament.The UK government is opposing the move, and argues it acted within its powers by seeking to prorogue Parliament.
The prime minister wants to suspend Parliament for five weeks ahead of a Queen's Speech on 14 October.The prime minister wants to suspend Parliament for five weeks ahead of a Queen's Speech on 14 October.
The parliamentarians - headed by SNP MP Joanna Cherry and Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson - lodged their case at the Court of Session at the start of August.
Their lawyer, Aidan O'Neill QC, told the court on Tuesday morning that the prime minister was attempting to hold office and to use power without any accountability to parliament.
He claimed the UK government was showing "breathtaking" contempt for the constitution, and likened it to autocratic rule.
Mr O'Neill said he was seeking an interim interdict - the Scottish equivalent of an injunction - on the proroguing of Parliament.
The UK government argues that proroguing Parliament is an exercise which the Queen alone could enter into, and was not a matter for the courts.
It has previously cited "classic examples of where the courts would not interfere" on prorogation and dissolving parliament.
It has also argued that there was a clear convention in the Queen following her government's advice, and there was a weight of evidence to suggest that such conventions were "non justiciable" - not subject to trial in a court of law.
Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC - Scotland's top law officer - has been given permission by the judge to take part in the hearing.Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC - Scotland's top law officer - has been given permission by the judge to take part in the hearing.
Mr Wolffe is expected to argue that the suspension of Parliament prevents scrutiny of the government's plans and represents an abuse of executive power.Mr Wolffe is expected to argue that the suspension of Parliament prevents scrutiny of the government's plans and represents an abuse of executive power.
Temporary halt
The parliamentarians - headed by SNP MP Joanna Cherry and Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson - first went to the Court of Session at the start of August.
The Queen has subsequently agreed to the prime minister's request to suspend parliament in September and October.
Lord Doherty has refused to order a temporary halt to prorogation.
Because Parliament cannot be suspended until 9 September at the earliest, he ruled that no interim interdict was needed ahead of the full hearing.
The judge will not decide on the merits of the case until he has heard further legal arguments from both sides.
During a hearing on Thursday, both sides put their views on the merits of a temporary order.
Aidan O'Neill QC, representing the parliamentarians, told Lord Doherty: "Powers of the executive are never unlimited or unfettered.
"We do not live in a totalitarian state."
He went on to argue that the suspension of parliament meant a denial of "political accountability" and was unconstitutional.
Roddy Dunlop QC, representing the UK government, said proroguing was an exercise which the Queen alone could enter into, and was not a matter for the courts.
He cited "classic examples of where the courts would not interfere" on prorogation and dissolving parliament, which he said was an analogous issue.
Mr Dunlop argued that there was a clear convention in the Queen following her government's advice, and there was a weight of evidence to suggest that such conventions were "non justiciable" - not subject to trial in a court of law.
Court of Session case: How we got hereCourt of Session case: How we got here
After Lord Doherty's initial ruling, a UK government spokesman said: "As we have set out, the government needs to bring forward a strong domestic legislative agenda and MPs are not prevented from scrutinising our withdrawal from the EU.
"We are glad the court found against the interdict - there was no good reason to seek one, given the full hearing is due to take place next week, and the process of bringing the session to an end will not start until the week commencing 9 September."
Jolyon Maugham QC, director of the Good Law Project which is supporting the challenge, has said: "A man with no mandate seeks to cancel Parliament for fear it will stop him inflicting on an unwilling public an outcome they did not vote for and do not want.
"That's certainly not democracy and I expect our courts to say it's not the law."
Prorogation in a nutshellProrogation in a nutshell
Parliament is normally suspended - or prorogued - for a short period before a new session begins. It is done by the Queen, on the advice of the prime minister.Parliament is normally suspended - or prorogued - for a short period before a new session begins. It is done by the Queen, on the advice of the prime minister.
Parliamentary sessions normally last a year, but the current one has been going on for more than two years - ever since the June 2017 election.Parliamentary sessions normally last a year, but the current one has been going on for more than two years - ever since the June 2017 election.
When Parliament is prorogued, no debates and votes are held - and most laws that haven't completed their passage through Parliament die a death.When Parliament is prorogued, no debates and votes are held - and most laws that haven't completed their passage through Parliament die a death.
This is different to "dissolving" Parliament - where all MPs give up their seats to campaign in a general election.This is different to "dissolving" Parliament - where all MPs give up their seats to campaign in a general election.
The last two times Parliament was suspended for a Queen's Speech that was not after a general election the closures lasted for four and 13 working days respectively.The last two times Parliament was suspended for a Queen's Speech that was not after a general election the closures lasted for four and 13 working days respectively.
If this prorogation happens as expected, it will see Parliament closed for 23 working days.If this prorogation happens as expected, it will see Parliament closed for 23 working days.
MPs have to approve recess dates, but they cannot block prorogation.MPs have to approve recess dates, but they cannot block prorogation.