Johnson’s Prorogation is Illegal Says Scottish Court - Brexit Explained

The video discusses a Scottish court ruling that declared the prorogation of Parliament by Boris Johnson as unlawful, suggesting it was intended to stymie parliamentary scrutiny. This decision contrasts with earlier rulings by other courts that deemed the prorogation lawful. The video explores the implications of this ruling, the potential for Parliament to reconvene, and the anticipation of a Supreme Court decision that could provide a final verdict. It also highlights differences in Scottish and English constitutional law perspectives.

What was the main reason the Scottish judges ruled the prorogation as unlawful?

• They believed it was intended to stymie Parliament.

• They were influenced by public opinion.

• They thought it was too short.

• They wanted to support the Prime Minister.

What does the court's ruling suggest about the status of Parliament?

• Parliament should hold a new election.

• Parliament should remain suspended.

• Parliament should return immediately.

• Parliament should wait for the Queen's decision.

Why is there uncertainty about the finality of the Scottish court's ruling?

• The ruling was not clear.

• The Queen has intervened.

• The Supreme Court has yet to make a decision.

• The government has already accepted the ruling.

What is a key difference between Scottish and English constitutional law?

• English law is more defined by AV Dicey's work.

• Scottish law is more influenced by public opinion.

• Scottish law does not allow for judicial review.

• English law is more flexible in parliamentary matters.

Why did the legal action regarding prorogation start in Scotland?

• Scottish judges were more likely to agree with the campaigners.

• The Prime Minister requested it.

• The Scottish courts have more power.

• The English courts were too busy.