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 2 Version 3
Brexit: Scottish court begins hearing Parliament shutdown challenge Brexit: Boris Johnson 'approved Parliament shutdown plan in mid-August'
(about 2 hours later)
A judge in Edinburgh has begun hearing arguments over the prime minister's plan to shut down the UK Parliament. Boris Johnson appears to have approved a plan to shut down the UK Parliament two weeks before publicly announcing it, a Scottish court has been told.
A cross-party group of parliamentarians wants a ruling at the Court of Session that Boris Johnson is acting illegally. The Court of Session heard that the prime minister was sent a note on 15 August asking if he wanted to prorogue parliament from mid-September.
The UK government is opposing the move, and argues it acted within its powers by seeking to prorogue Parliament. A tick and the word "yes" was written on the document.
The prime minister wants to suspend Parliament for five weeks ahead of a Queen's Speech on 14 October. The PM announced on 28 August that he wants to shut down Parliament for five weeks from next week.
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. He would then set out his legislative plans in a Queen's Speech on 14 October. The government insists this will give MPs sufficient time to debate Brexit before the UK's departure on 31 October.
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. A cross-party group of parliamentarians headed by SNP MP Joanna Cherry and Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson wants Scotland's highest civil court to rule that Mr Johnson has acted illegally and unconstitutionally by proroguing Parliament ahead of the UK leaving the EU.
He claimed the UK government was showing "breathtaking" contempt for the constitution, and likened it to autocratic rule. When the full hearing started on Tuesday morning, their lawyer Aidan O'Neill QC told judge Lord Doherty that one of the documents produced in the case was a note sent by the government's director of legislative affairs, Nikki Da Costa, to the prime minister and his special advisor Dominic Cummings on 15 August.
Mr O'Neill said he was seeking an interim interdict - the Scottish equivalent of an injunction - on the proroguing of Parliament. Mr O'Neill said the note was headed "ending the session", and asked: "Are you content for your PPS (parliamentary private secretary) to approach the palace with the request for prorogation to begin with the period 9 September to Thursday 12 September and for the Queen's Speech on 14 October?"
Beside that paragraph was a handwritten tick and the word "yes", Mr O'Neill added.
The QC said: "One presumes this is a document which was sent in the red box to the prime minister for him to read at his leisure in the evening of 15 August in which he says 'yes' to approaching the palace with a request for prorogation."
He added: "That appears to be developing government policy as of 15 August, but this court was told nothing of that and was told in fact that this judicial review is academic, hypothetical and premature.
"That is not true. This court and these petitioners were being actively misled."
He also highlighted a handwritten note by Mr Johnson which was dated 16 August, in which he described the September session of Parliament as a "rigmarole introduced to show the public that MPs were earning their crust" and that he did not see "anything particularly shocking about this decision".
Mr O'Neill went on to claim that the prime minister was showing "breathtaking" contempt for the constitution by proroguing parliament ahead of the Brexit deadline, and likened it to autocratic rule.
He said that Mr Johnson had declined to give a sworn affidavit and argued that this refusal to explain decision-making process meant the court "can and should draw adverse inferences".
Mr O'Neill is seeking an interim interdict - the Scottish equivalent of an injunction - on the proroguing of Parliament.
Court of Session case: How we got here
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.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 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.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.
Court of Session case: How we got here
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.