It is part of it, but I think the most important part of it is this: that the Advocate General for Scotland seeks to knock out our case by saying, if Mr Eadie is right on the construction of the 1972 Act, the dominoes fall and we must lose.
The answer to that is not necessarily but more importantly, you cannot view the 1972 Act in isolation. Because when we get to the devolution legislation, our point, and simple point, is that the detailed machinery of conferment of power in that statute can be read alongside -- in fact all the statutes in relation to this point need to be read in pari materia.
But the simple point here is that the devolution legislation has deliberately prescribed a legislative scheme relating to the competence of the Assembly, a constraint that one cannot act incompatibly with EU law. The Advocate General says you don't need that provision, never needed to legislate that. There was a deliberate choice to put that provision in, and it was put in in full knowledge of the 1972 legislation and what it meant.
So the devolution legislation is highly relevant, both in terms of the framework of that Act, and also in terms of its impact on the proper interpretation of the 1972 Act. That is how we put it.