In his earlier exchanges with the leader of the opposition, the First Minister was fulsome in his praise for the Supreme Court judgment. But would he agree with me that what we've seen today is the making of new law, which the Supreme Court, of course, does have the power to do? There's no doubt that prerogative powers are governed by the common law; that's been the case for 400 years, and nobody disputes that general proposition. But, previously, the use of the prerogative power to order a prorogation, and indeed the length of time for which that prorogation lasts, has always been regarded as inherently a political matter. And that for the courts to stray into this political arena carries with it certain dangers, which are obvious.

In her summary of the judgment, Baroness Hale said this morning that,

'prolonged suspension of Parliamentary democracy took place in quite exceptional circumstances: the fundamental change which was due to take place in the Constitution of the United Kingdom on 31st October. Parliament, and in particular the House of Commons as the elected representatives of the people, has a right to a voice in how that change comes about.'

One glaring omission in the judgment, of course, is any reference to the referendum, and the role that the British people have to play in their future. And when she said that Parliament, the House of Commons, as the elected representatives of the people, have a voice, what if they are not representing what the people voted for in June 2016, when 17.4 million people voted to leave, and now a remain Parliament is doing everything it possibly can to frustrate what the people voted for?