Legal Explanation Needed Please......

[ToraToraTora]

OK the prorogation was deemed unlawful last week and apparently the law that it contravenes is the "Claim of Right Act (Scotland) 1689" - a Scottish law made before the UK was formed. Can some legal beagle explain how a law made in another country before the act of union can possibly apply to the whole of the UK, thanks.

[Zacs-Master]

Crikey, Tora’s using my jelly!

[Old_Geezer]

I'd guess it means that the Scots aren't bound by her majesty's bill/act/proclamation/whatever and their MPs are allowed to sit in parliament and chat amongst themselves until the UK court reaches a verdict. Or maybe it just means that they can sit in the Scottish parliament ?

[ToraToraTora]

I took on board what you said ZM, I'm now trying to comprehend it.

[THECORBYLOON]

Have you read the full decision?

[ToraToraTora]

TCL: yes I have.

An aber asked what law had been broken which did seem to me a fair question and indeed ZM was kind enough to supply us that information. Now we are attepting to comprehend how a law made in another country before our country was even created can possibly be the basis on which a UK court makes a decision.

[Zacs-Master]

James the first’s claim to the Scottish throne was denied him because of his violation of the Scottish constitutional law. The crown was then offered to, and accepted by William & Mary. A convention of Scottish estates adopted the Claim of Rights and I’m speculating here, but I then presume because English Monarchs ruled in Scotland the CoR was automatically adopted into English law.

At least, that s what I glean from Wiki!

[THECORBYLOON]

The way I read the full decision, they were saying the Claim of Right did not apply in the case.

[New Judge]

Yet another good reason to homogenise the two legal systems and legislation that exists in England and Scotland

[THECORBYLOON]

There are three legal systems in the UK and there is no chance that any of them will be brought fully into line with another.

[douglas9401]

Indeed, New Judge, England would be vastly improved by adopting the legal system of a civilised country. :-)

[Zacs-Master]

Scotland separate legal system predates the 1707 Treaty of Union that brought together Scotland and England as does NI. The Supreme Court can rule on legal matters for all three jurisdictions.

[Zacs-Master]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_Kingdom

[dannyk13]

ZM //The Supreme Court can rule on legal matters for all three jurisdictions.//
That is not the issue.The issue is whether a Scottish Law has jurisdiction in England.

[Zacs-Master]

I’ve given a possible explanation for that, dan.

[dannyk13]

ZM, as you say you have given a possible explanation, but that is only a supposition.Nobody seems to be able to find a definite explanation.

[Zacs-Master]

At least I’ve had a crack at it.

[New Judge]

//At least I’ve had a crack at it.//

And so have I. A single nation (which the UK is) requires a single legal and judicial system. Without it, conflicts on matters stretching from simple speeding offences to constitutional issues such as this will abound. Scotland and Northern Ireland both need to accept they are part of the UK (either that or leave it). Of course they were encouraged to believe otherwise by the ridiculous devolution arrangements put in place by Blair. The increasing folly of that philosophy is becoming more obvious every day.

[dannyk13]

NJ, Totally agree with you but, unfortunately, that gets us no nearer to the issue of whether that Scottish law appertains in England.

[THECORBYLOON]

NJ, which legal system should be applied in the UK?

[Zacs-Master]

I don’t really see that as any kind of explanation, NJ. Sorry.