Can I just interpose there. You are focusing in answer to my Lord on the 1972 Act, and looking at the Counsel General's case, I thought that some new issue was being addressed, which related to the devolution legislation. I don't see any focus really on anything else. We have had a lot of argument about the 1972 Act, Mr Eadie has made extensive submissions and Lord Pannick has replied.
But I thought that your case was a separate case, namely to say that even if the 1972 Act didn't -- will allow the use of the prerogative in the way that Mr Eadie submits, nonetheless the devolution legislation makes it impossible; that is also part of your case, is it?