Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon on Tuesday said she was "disappointed" after Britain's Supreme Court ruled that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will not need to be consulted before starting the process of leaving the European Union.

Speaking in Edinburgh, Sturgeon said, despite the ruling, that it was the UK government's "political obligation...to listen to the devolved administrations."

She also welcomed the news that MPs will vote on the triggering of Article 50.

++SOUNDBITES SEPARATED BY BLACK FRAMES++

POOL

Edinburgh - 24 January 2017

1. SOUNDBITE (English) Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland's First Minister:

"Well I welcome the Supreme Court ruling that an act of parliament is required in the House of Commons before the triggering of Article 50. I think that ruling is an indictment of a UK government that thought it could press ahead without any reference to Parliament whatsoever. So it's now vital that parliament gets the chance to debate and decide upon, not just the triggering of Article 50 but I think the terms of the negotiating position as well, and SNP MPs will seek to work with others to stop a hard Brexit in its tracks."

++BLACK FRAMES++

2. SOUNDBITE (English) Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland's First Minister:

"Scotland voted against Brexit and therefore I think it is inconceivable that SNP MPs would vote for the triggering of Article 50. But I think it's important that the House of Commons and parliament is involved not just in that narrow question whether to trigger Article 50 but also the terms of the negotiations. The Prime Minister set it last week, a path towards the hardest of hard Brexits. I don't believe there's a majority for that in the House of Commons and I certainly don't believe there's majority for that across the country so this is an opportunity for the House of Commons to assert itself and to have a say not just on the narrow question but on the broader terms of negotiations as well."

++BLACK FRAMES++

3. SOUNDBITE (English) Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland's First Minister:

"I am disappointed at the Supreme Court ruling about the rule of the devolved administrations and I think it raises a really important question for the UK government after the Smith Commission following the independence referendum. They were at great pains to see that the Sewel Convention was to be embedded in legislation and therefore that it was taking on a more important role in the devolved arrangements. Now, what was the point of embedding it in legislation if it's not legally enforceable? I think that commitment from the UK government today has been shown to be not worth the paper it's written on. That said the court is very clear, that Brexit will touch upon the devolved competencies of the devolved administrations and recognises the importance of Sewel as a political convention. So I think that there's still a political obligation for the UK government to listen to the devolved administrations, we will certainly bring forward a legislative consent motion because I think it's important that the Scottish Parliament has the right to vote on whether or not it is prepared to consent the triggering or not of Article 50."

++BLACK FRAMES++

4. SOUNDBITE (English) Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland's First Minister:

"But there's nothing in the Supreme Court's ruling that's says that Sewel Convention should be ignored completely as a political convention. Clearly Brexit impinges upon the devolved competencies, not just of the Scottish parliament but the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Irish Assembly, as well. And I think it's a matter of democratic principle that the Scottish parliament on such a big fundamental issue with so many implications for the devolved settlements should have a say on whether or not it consents to the triggering of Article 50. So we will bring forward a motion that allows the Scottish Parliament to do that and I will then hope that the UK government would pay attention to it."

++BLACK FRAMES++

5. SOUNDBITE (English) Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland's First Minister:

"I have made very clear that that option is very very much on the table and as I have said before with every day that passes right now it's becoming clearer that Scotland's voice cannot and is not able to be heard within the UK on this question. That raises big issues. I have set down a path of process of exhausting and exploring all options. I will continue to do that but be in no doubt that I think the decision is looming for Scotland. Are we prepared to allow our future to be dictated by a Westminster government that's gone down a path I think the majority of people in Scotland do not want to go down or are we going to take our futures in our own hands?"

++ENDS ON SOUNDBITE++

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson faces a wait for a ruling from the UK's highest court over his advice to the Queen to suspend Parliament for five weeks.

The Supreme Court in London has been asked to determine whether the prorogation move - which has closed down Parliament until October 14 - was unlawful.

A panel of 11 justices heard appeals over three days arising out of separate legal challenges in England and Scotland, in which leading judges reached different conclusions.

At the close of the unprecedented hearing on Thursday, the court's president, Brenda Hale, said the 11 judges would give their ruling early next week.

Lawyer for Scottish National Party MP, Joanna Cherry, one of a group of Scottish MPs who took legal action against the government, said outside court that both sides of the Brexit divide should be worried about the prime minister suspending parliament "as an inconvenience."

"This is not an issue about Brexit. This is an issue about who holds power in this country," Jolyon Maugham said.

London - 19 September 2019

1. Exteriors of UK Supreme Court with media gathered outside

2. Close of court building

3. Various of media outside Supreme Court

4. Brexit supporter holding a 'We Voted Leave' placard

5. Protesters against suspension of parliament gathered outside Supreme Court

6. Brexit supporters holding placards and union jack umbrella

7. Protestors holding a banner reading (English) "Have a nice long holiday folks. Don't come back until Nov 1st Thank you xxx 17.4 million people"

8. Media gathered outside the Supreme Court

9. Transparency activist who filed a case against the suspension of parliament, Gina Miller, leaving court with others

10. Scottish National Party MP, Joanna Cherry, one of a group of Scottish MPs who took legal action against the government, and her lawyer Jolyon Maugham walking out of court

11. The Supreme Court sign

12. SOUNDBITE (English) Joanna Cherry, Scottish National Party MP:

"I would like the court to make as clear a statement as possible as to what should follow. In a normal functioning democracy one would expect the prime minister to obey what the Supreme Court says. But we are not currently in a normal functioning democracy. We're in a democracy, in adverted commas, where a prime minister with no majority has suspended parliament because it was getting in his way. So I would hope that the UK Supreme Court will be as clear as they possibly can be about the consequences of their decision, should they find in our favour."

13. Police gathered outside court

14. SOUNDBITE (English) Jolyon Maugham, Joanna Cherry's lawyer:

"All of us, whatever side of the Brexit divide we are on, should be worried about a world in which a prime minister can suspend parliament as an inconvenience. Those who support Boris Johnson's actions at the moment should be asking themselves the question, how they would feel about a future Labour prime minister, perhaps Jeremy Corbyn, who did not any longer want to be subjected to the constraints that parliament might face upon his actions. How would they feel about this? This is not an issue about Brexit. This is an issue about who holds power in this country. Is it Parliament elected by the people or is it a leader elected by a tiny number of members - self-selecting members - of a particular political party?"

15. Public lawyer from Oxford University, Stefan Theil, using his mobile phone

16. SOUNDBITE (English) Stefan Theil, Public lawyer from Oxford University:

"Because it is the case that Parliament is now prorogued there are certain things that it cannot do anymore. The most important thing is to hold the government to account and it's suggested that there would be a possibility for a - hypothetically speaking - for a prime minister to prorogue Parliament in order to get rid of the army or to prorogue Parliament when it becomes apparent that he or she is going to lose a motion of no confidence and suggested that these examples demonstrate that the principle really has to be that prorogation has to be strictly controlled by the courts. There needs to be anxious interrogation of the reasons for prorogation when it touches on these fundamental constitutional principles."

17. Cutaway of Theil's hands

18. SOUNDBITE (English) Stefan Theil, Public lawyer from Oxford University:

"So potentially very far reaching. So depending on what the courts end up deciding it could mean that the Prime Minister unlawfully prorogued Parliament and that Parliament could sit again. It could also mean that they leave it at a declaration of unlawfulness and don't take any further action, which would then have political repercussion. It's very hard to say at this stage."

19. Exterior of Supreme Court

20. SOUNDBITE (English) Stefan Theil, Public lawyer from Oxford University:

"It looks really bad for Boris Johnson I think if it's found to be unlawful. This is really an unprecedented case. It really hasn't happened before that prorogation has been before the courts like this and it would be bad for any prime minister I should think."

21. Security guard outside court

22. Exteriors of Supreme Court

Opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn has welcomed Tuesday's Supreme Court ruling that UK parliament should be consulted before the government triggers Article 50 to leave the European Union.

The Labour party leader said he would not block the government's plan to invoke Article 50 by the end of March, saying "it doesn't mean we abdicate the field, it means we then hold the government to account".

UK POOL

London - 24 January 2017

1. SOUNDBITE (English) Jeremy Corbyn, British opposition Labour party leader:

"We will support Article 50 being triggered, we have made that very, very clear. That is the result of the referendum and we have to respect that. It doesn't mean we abdicate the field, it means we have to hold the government to account on the issues of trade, the issues of rights and the issues of the long-term direction in which this country wants to go. Because the strange thing about the Prime Minister's speech was this implied threat that if Europe doesn't do what she wants, then she's going to turn us into some Singapore-style economy on the shores of Europe. Well, that is not what people voted for, people voted for leaving the European Union, they didn't vote to vote themselves out of work."

++BLACK++

2. SOUNDBITE (English) Jeremy Corbyn, British opposition Labour party leader:

"I think it's quite appalling that the government has not produced a White Paper as a statement of what its intents are. All we have is a speech that the Prime Minister made at Lancaster House, we've got the court judgement this morning and we're going to have a statement apparently from David Davis (UK Brexit Secretary) a bit later on today in the House. Frankly, there should be a proper statement of what the government intends to do on this. We have been making the point ever since the referendum that parliament must be involved. We must be able to hold the government to account, that's what parliament exists for, to hold them to account to make sure that the negotiations actually are for the benefit of all the people of this country, however they voted in the referendum."

++BLACK++

3. SOUNDBITE (English) Jeremy Corbyn, British opposition Labour party leader:

"I don't think it's good enough. We cannot say, okay, Article 50, you go off and negotiate and in two year's time you come back with a vote. That's not acceptable. We need to be informed, be able to challenge, be able to overturn if necessary, the objectives and direction in which the government is going on those negotiations. There is also going to be the Great Repeal Bill which will come up presumably during the coming summer. That's going to be an enormous piece of legislation because it is amending 40 years of UK parliamentary legislation, all of which at some point or the other usually refers to European regulations. But we're very clear; we're going to hold them to account. We're going to hold them to account to protect jobs, we're going to hold them to account to make sure British industry does have market access and we're not going to allow ourselves to become some kind of off-shore tax haven. That's not what people voted for."

++BLACK++

4. SOUNDBITE (English) Jeremy Corbyn, British opposition Labour party leader:

"Look every MP represents a constituency, every MP has people that voted either way in the referendum. Every MP represents a constituency and people are worried. They're worried about jobs, they're worried about services, they're worried about rights. There's a whole sense that we will succeed in uniting people around the objectives of the kind of decent, inclusive, caring society we want in Britain. We don't want to become a haven for funny money and dodgy tax avoiders."

++ENDS ON SOUNDBITE++

The leader of Catalonia's failed secession bid in 2017 says that Spain will seek "vengeance" rather than justice when 12 of his separatist allies stand trial next week accused of rebellion and other charges.

Carles Puigdemont, who will follow the trial from self-imposed exile in Belgium, accused EU countries of double standards for recognizing Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido as that country's interim president, while ignoring his attempt to declare independence for Catalonia.

The former Catalan regional president slipped out of Spain after the government removed him from office following the regional parliament's declaration of independence on Oct. 27, 2017.

Twelve other separatists will go on trial in Spain's Supreme Court on Feb. 12 on charges including rebellion and sedition.

"We are all supporting them, helping them because they are suffering a terribly unjust and humiliating situation and being used to set an example," Puigdemont said in the interview in the Belgian town of Waterloo, south of Brussels.

The trial, he said, "will not be an act of justice but rather one of vengeance."

Spanish Supreme Court President Carlos Lesmes has dismissed such claims, insisting the trial will follow the "highest standards set by the European Union."

The trial will be broadcast on TV from Madrid. A request by defense lawyers to have Puigdemont testify via video conference was refused.

Instead, he will watch the proceedings from his home in Waterloo, a two-story brick house bordered by trimmed hedges.

Puigdemont said that what he expects will be a guilty verdict for his fellow separatists, including members of his defunct Cabinet, would only provide momentum to the separatist movement, which he predicted would gain the support of a clear majority of Catalans.

"That moment will arrive and when it does we will have all the legitimacy to take the decisions that we have already decided in parliament and have ratified in a plebiscite," he said, adding that the declaration of independence was still valid.

The "yes" vote won in a landslide in the October 2017 referendum, during which hundreds of people were injured in a police crackdown.

But those in favor of remaining with Spain largely stayed home, and Spain's central government declared the vote illegal and unconstitutional.

Subsequent regional elections indicated that Catalonia is evenly split between those in favor and those against independence.

Waterloo – 3 February 2019

1. Former Catalan president, Carles Puigdemont, entering room

2. Puigdemont talking to journalist during interview

3. SOUNDBITE (Spanish) Carles Puigdemont, former president of the regional government of Catalonia:

(Speaking about the 12 Catalan separatists who will stand trial in Spain next week):

"We are all supporting them, helping them because they are suffering a terribly unjust and humiliating situation, and are being used to set an example. The trial is not an act of justice. It will not be an act of justice but rather one of vengeance, and a punishment for future generations."

4. Cutaway Puigdemont

5. SOUNDBITE (Spanish) Carles Puigdemont, former president of the regional government of Catalonia

"What will happen when they are not just three or four points of difference in favour of independence and we clearly are more than 55 percent? Are they going to carry on in the same way? These questions need to be thought through, because that moment will arrive and when it does we will have all the legitimacy to take the decisions that we have already decided in parliament and have ratified in a plebiscite. And before this I think European democracy will have to answer once and for all, because this is a European problem and a democratic problem. Finally if European democracy is so strong as to recognise a self-proclaimed president in Venezuela without passing through an election, one must similarly answer questions about domestic matters. What happens when a democratically elected parliament is dissolved, when a democratically elected president is deposed via a coup, Article 155 (constitutional article allowing the Spanish government to suspend any region's self-government should it disobey the law or attack Spain's general interests)? The European Union needs to answer to this. This is going to happen, this is going to come; and whether they will condemn, absolve or persecute us, the over two million of Catalans who have mentally detached themselves from Spain will continue to do so, and we will need a political solution to this."

6. Cutaway Puigdemont

7. SOUNDBITE (Spanish) Carles Puigdemont, former president of the regional government of Catalonia

"As for Brexit, despite the fact it was a result that I did not like, despite the fact that it's a loss for Europe to see British democracy leave, there is the legitimacy of a referendum and a decision that was taken legitimately on this matter. And regarding this decision there needs to be a complex political reaction, not an easy and childish one. It's the same for the Catalonia case or for the negotiations about the accession of a country into the European Union. How many years have there been negotiations or conversations with Turkey, or with those in the list of nations that the European Union would like to incorporate, Kosovo or Macedonia? It will take years. Of course citizens may suffer the consequences in the process, there are transition costs that come with independence, of course there are costs, like Brexit, this is undeniable. There are also costs to dependence that one must put on the table."

8. Cutaway Puigdemont

9. SOUNDBITE (Spanish) Carles Puigdemont, former president of the regional government of Catalonia

"Catalonia declared its independence. Catalonia is not recognised by any country, Catalonia today is a de facto political subject, much more than it was a year and a half or two years ago. The persistence and will of the people to be independent remains, it's an evolution and one cannot stop the natural evolution of things."

10. Cutaway Puigdemont

11. Exterior of Puigdemont's Belgian residence

12. Pan left road leading to Puigdemont Belgian residence

13. Supporter holding Catalonia flag and talking to another girl in front of Puigdemont Belgian residence

Proceedings began on Monday at the UK's highest court as the British government attempts to overturn a ruling that Parliament must hold a vote before Britain's European Union exit negotiations can begin.

Prime Minister Theresa May plans to trigger two years of divorce talks before the end of March by invoking Article 50 of the EU's key treaty, using centuries-old government powers known as royal prerogative.

The powers - traditionally held by the monarch but now used by politicians - enable decisions about joining or leaving international treaties to be made without a parliamentary vote.

Financial entrepreneur Gina Miller and hairdresser Deir Dos Santos went to court to argue that leaving the EU will remove some of their rights, including free movement within the bloc, and that shouldn't be done without Parliament's approval.

Last month, three High Court judges agreed.

But the government says they have misinterpreted the law.

Government lawyers led by Attorney General Jeremy Wright will argue this week that the British people have spoken by voting in a June 23 referendum to leave the EU.

They say a parliamentary vote would mean getting lawmakers "to answer precisely the same question which was put by Parliament to the electorate and has been answered in the referendum."

Many legal experts say the government will likely lose its appeal and be forced to give Parliament a vote.

In a reflection of the constitutional importance of the case - which hinges on the balance of power between Parliament and the executive - all 11 Supreme Court judges will hear the appeal, the first time the full court has sat since it was founded in 2009.

The case is scheduled to last four days, with a ruling likely in January.

UK POOL

London - 5 December 2016

1. Zoom in from man waving European Union flag outside court building to flag

2. Attorney General for England and Wales Jeremy Wright arriving with his associates

3. Protest bus passing outside court, people on it chanting UPSOUND (English) "Nigel, where are you!"

4. Gina Miller, investment fund manager and philanthropist who was one of the team that won the High Court ruling, arriving with her associates, posing for photographers in front of court entrance