Scottish judges rule prorogation unlawful. Is it a bit late for that now?

Appeal court judges in Scotland have ruled that Boris Johnson’s suspension of Parliament until mid-October is not legal.

The decision overturns a previous ruling that courts did not have the power to overturn Mr Johnson’s political decision to prorogue Parliament.

But they did not issue an injunction or interdict ordering Parliament to reconvene after the prorogation came into effect early on Tuesday morning (September 10).

Lord Carloway, Scotland’s most senior judge, said the Scottish tribunal was deferring a final decision on an interdict to the UK supreme court, which will hold a three-day hearing next week.

The UK government will appeal at the UK supreme court against the latest ruling, which also contradicts a decision in BoJob’s favour by senior English judges last week.

So it seems an appeal against the Scottish judges’ ruling that prorogation is unlawful will take place at the same time – September 17 – as an appeal against the UK judges’ ruling that it isn’t.

What if both appeals succeed?

And let’s not forget that another challenge is to be heard at a court in Belfast.

Meanwhile, as the courts go through their slow deliberations, Parliament remains unable to sit; unable to get on and deal with the important issues facing the UK.

I fear that the end result will be a decision that the prorogation was unlawful – delivered after it has ended.

What good will that be?

Source: Scottish judges rule PM’s suspension of parliament is unlawful | UK news | The Guardian

EXTRA: It seems the governent has not moved to have the effect of the Scottish court’s ruling delayed until after the Supreme Court in London delivers its decision on Tuesday (September 17).

This means that the prorogation is not currently in force and Parliament may meet again.

But will it?

It seems likely that soon-to-retire Speaker John Bercow may look kindly on the possibility.

But if the Tory government refuses to take part, won’t this only complicate matters even more?

And should that worry us – or should we embrace it as the possibility of even more embarrassment for Boris Johnson?

Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:


No Comments

  1. Foggy September 11, 2019 at 11:12 am - Reply

    Serious question; Is lying to or knowingly misleading the Queen High Treason ?

    • Zippi September 11, 2019 at 5:27 pm - Reply

      This was my thinking.

  2. trev September 11, 2019 at 11:13 am - Reply

    It gives a clear signal to everyone in the land to go out and break the law.

    • Mike Sivier September 11, 2019 at 12:19 pm - Reply

      How does it do that?

      • trev September 11, 2019 at 12:31 pm - Reply

        Because the Law itself is broken.

  3. Zippi September 11, 2019 at 5:33 pm - Reply

    I’m no lawyer but I’m curious. How is it that two courts in two countries, presided over by four judges, agreed in their conclusions and said that, either, what the Prime Minister and/ or the government did was not illegal, or was not for the court to decide, have had those judgements overturned by another? Was the same evidence not submitted and examined? what has changed, other than the personnel? If the £aw has been broken, was it not obvious? Was it not broken last week? What could these judges see that the others could not?
    Given this ruling, is it likely that the Supreme Court will find the same? What if it does not? What if it does?

  4. Zippi September 11, 2019 at 5:38 pm - Reply

    My understanding is that the case to be heard in Belfast is a challenge to the legality of a “no-deal Brexit,” which is, as I understand it, not in the gift of Parliament, or the U.K. government but of the E.U., given that the original Article 50 has expired and we have now, only until the 31st of October, unless the E.U. says otherwise.
    I had forgotten that Gina Miller et al will be appealing the last judgement, too.

Leave A Comment