The Scottish Court of Session found that Boris Johnson misled the Queen about his reasons for wanting to prorogue Parliament. The Prime Minister had said that it was so that a Queen's Speech could be introduced, but the judgment made it clear that there was documented evidence that the true reason was to stymie parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive. The English High Court did not contradict this, so there is no debate about whether Boris Johnson lied to the Queen and everybody else about the true nature of his reasons for proroguing Parliament—he did. The point at which the judgment of the High Court differed to the Court of Session was about whether lying about the reasons for prorogation is justiciable or not—that is, whether it's a legal or a political matter. Is the Counsel General in a position to explain his legal basis for believing that this is a justiciable matter and whether, if the Supreme Court finds in his favour, a judgment that prorogation is unlawful in this instance will be enforceable? I ask because of the briefings from No. 10 that they may seek to prorogue Parliament for a second time, regardless.