THE United Kingdom would be in "unprecedented territory" if a Scottish court was to rule the decision to prorogue Parliament breaches the rule of law.
A request by Prime Minister Boris Johnson that Parliament be suspended was approved by the Queen on Wednesday.
But a motion was filed at the Court of Session in Edinburgh by a cross-party group of more than 70 MPs and peers in a bid to stall Johnson.
Opposition leaders have written to the monarch in protest at the move, while Commons Speaker John Bercow described it as a "constitutional outrage" designed to stop Parliament debating Brexit.
Nick McKerrell, a lecturer in law at Glasgow Caledonian University, said the legal action centres on the suggestion the decision to prorogue Parliament breaches the rule of law.
"The legal action at one level is unusual as it seeks the court to intervene in a political decision," he said.
"To take this action, they are using the fairly standard legal process of judicial review - which can only be heard in Scotland in the Court of Session.
"This procedure is generally used for decision-making in its broadest sense, not matters of policy.
"The difference here is that those raising the case, which includes MPs and Lords, is that they argue the decision fundamentally breaches the rule of law - which is seen as central to the UK Constitution."
McKerrell explained it would be a "big ask" for the court to say the Queen, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, is ignoring the UK constitution.
He said: "It is argued that the period of five weeks is far too extensive for prorogation as it overlaps with the period that Parliament can meet to consider the issues surrounding the withdrawal of the EU prior to exit day, as they call it, on October 31.
"This essentially will not leave enough time for democracy to properly function, thus the argument goes that the Court has to take action to make sure that the constitution is upheld."
He added: "The fact that this is an action against an order the Queen herself has made would not stop the court ruling on it automatically.
"However, it would be a big ask for the court to say that the Queen acting on the advice of the Prime Minister and senior politicians is fundamentally breaking the rule of law and ignoring the UK constitution.
"We really would be in unprecedented territory there if that happened."
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