Thread of useful links and phone numbers: Christmas is always a difficult time for many people. This one is liable to be a lot harder for so many more though, and for so many more reasons than many expect. 1/

1/

The SNP versus the Law

The SNP is in trouble. They know it and we know it. It’s almost certain that Nicola Sturgeon will need to resign for lying to Holyrood

This explains the frantic calls for another referendum

Brexit is done and the sky didn’t fall in

2/

This removes their number one Bête Noire. A Disastrous hard Brexit

They were banking on that happening. There will be, and are, difficulties with the new trading arrangements but these will play out over years and will be sorted one way or another

3/

The Law

As it stands, the SNP cannot call another referendum without the permission of the UK Parliament

Some people dispute this, including many in the SNP

So. What’s the alternative?

The could call a non binding non legal referendum but what’s the point

Unionist will

4/

boycott it and non SNP councils will refuse to participate

Although that’s their latest plan, it’s a non starter

In the absence of a S30 order their only recourse is to test the competence to hold another referendum in the Supreme Court

This is fraught with dangers

5/

They have to balance the possibility of getting a positive SC judgement against getting a negative judgement

I’ll start with the negative judgement first

Were the Scot Gov to go to the SC they would risk not one but two massively disastrous and fatal outcomes

Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal in the Bell v Tavistock case has been refused. 10 grounds of appeal were advanced. None succeeded, including an attempt at an Article 14 (discrimination) point which had not been suggested previously by the Defendant.

Here is a copy of the Order refusing the Defendant’s application for permission to appeal.

An application for permission to appeal will now to be made TO the Court of Appeal itself.



That appeal will only be allowed where the court below (the High Court) was wrong or the decision unjust because of some procedural irregularity. The High Court has already said no. Will the CoA?

In other words - permission has been refused by the High Court to appeal up to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal now gets to decide ITSELF if it will hear the appeal. That we won’t know the outcome of for a few months.

Be sure to note you WILL hear about it.

Franklin Templeton Update

1. Franklin Templeton (Trustees) - six schemes under winding up - have announced dates of voting to seek consent of Unitholders to wind up. Voting begins 26Dec20 at 9am

2. Supreme Court will continue to hear the case - Next hearing on 9th Dec

(1/n)

Q1: What is the voting about by FT
Ans: To validate/approve decision of Trustees to wind up 6 schemes - both Guj & Knataka Courts said Unitholder consent is mandatory

FT has now agreed to do this and this vote will take ur consent to either wind up the scheme or NOT.

(2/n)

Q2: What are the options in this Voting?

Ans: This will be the first voting. (There will be a second vote, I will explain in thread later)

In this Vote, you will have two options
YES - Wind up Schemes
No - Do not wind up, open them up

You have to choose one option

(3/n)

Q3: Should I vote YES or No?

Ans: There is fatigue in investors as their money is locked up for in these tough Covid times. It's been now over 7 months

Most investors take it as fait accompli to vote YES
FT is exhorting investors to vote YES as the best way ahead

(4/n)

Q4: But how should investors vote? YES or No?

Ans: YES will lead to wind up at a pace defined by winder (the person winds up the scheme). This will lead to best value realisation of underlying assets

NO- Will lead to immediate access to money but not best value for you

(5/n)

We are today attending the virtual hearing for #AllisonBailey’s claim against Stonewall & Garden Court Chambers.

Discussions on redactions in papers.

Ben Cooper QC for @BluskyeAllison arguing against redactions.

#AllisonBailey

#AllisonBailey

Ben Cooper trying to establish communications between individuals at Stonewall & individuals at Garden Court Chambers. Arguing names of individuals is relevant and they put in public domain.

#AllisonBailey

Robin Moira White arguing private Facebook group is not public domain.

#AllisonBailey

Ben Cooper QC discussing individuals who had made complaints to Garden Court Chambers. Discussion is can these individuals be publicly named or should they be redacted in papers. These individuals have connections with Stonewall.

I’ve often said that nothing is normal about Julian Assange’s case. Here’s my list of the top 10 least normal aspects, strictly on the logistical side of monitoring the extradition proceedings (this is not to mention the many substantive issues that are also far from normal).

1. The judge’s stubbornly persistent refusal to acknowledge that NGO observers are professionals and have an important role to play (separate to that of the general public) in ensuring open justice, and refusal to grant us access to be able to do our jobs properly.

2. The constantly shifting goal posts in gaining access to the public gallery, and arbitrary restrictions on numbers in all 3 courts where proceedings have been held. On any given day, it’s impossible to predict how many will be let in and when, necessitating very early queuing.

3. Receiving conflicting information from the court about remote access, including being accredited to the Cloud Video Platform and then having that access revoked in September. The same thing seems to have happened to us again for 4th January.

4. After unbelievable difficulty getting in, what we actually observed was a small screen on the other side of a large room. It was often impossible to tell who was who, and I could only follow properly as I had the lawyers’ voices memorised from February (when I could see them).