you're watching bbc newsroom live — it's11am and these are the main stories this morning: scotland's highest civil court rules that the suspension of parliament is unlawful — because it was motivated by the "improper purpose of stymying parliament". the advice given by the government to her majesty the queen to prorogue parliament from the 9th of september to the 14th of october was unlawful and that therefore, the prorogation itself is unlawful. mixed messages from labour as deputy leader tom watson calls for a referendum before an election, and says they should back remain, putting him at odds with jeremy corbyn. i will argue that our position going into that election should be totally clear. we should unambiguously and unequivocally back remain.

a record number of migrants crossing the channel — border force picked up 86 people yesterday. record numbers of stores disappeared from britain's high streets in the first half of this year, according to a report from a leading accounting firm. coming up, a warning from car insurers on driverless cars — they say they'll cause more accidents without proper regulation. good morning. welcome to bbc newsroom live. i'm annita mcveigh. scotland's highest civil court has ruled that borisjohnson‘s suspension of parliament is unlawful. in the last hour a panel of three judges at the court of session found in favour of a cross—party group of politicians who were challenging the prime minister's move.

a five—week suspension of parliament began in the early hours of tuesday. no order has been given by the court to cancel it — and there will be a full hearing at the supreme court next tuesday. the government says it's disappointed by the decision. in a summary of theirfindings, the court of session judges said they were unanimous in their belief that mrjohnson‘s decision to suspend was motivated by the "improper purpose of stymying parliament". they added: "the court will accordingly make an order declaring that the prime minister's advice to hm the queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect." judge lord doherty originally dismissed a challenge against the suspension at the court of session last wednesday, saying it was for politicians and not the courts to decide. but three judges of the inner house, the supreme civil court in scotland, disagreed with lord

doherty‘s ruling. each opinion expresses the view that the advice given by the government to her majesty the queen to prorogue parliament from the 9th of september to the 14th of october was unlawful and that therefore, the prorogation itself is unlawful. the court is conscious that it's view differs from that of the divisional court of the queens bench division in england and wales on the matter is therefore likely to require resolution by the united kingdom supreme court. this morning, the court does not propose to make any ancillary orders, pending that resolution, and it will therefore reserve all incidental or related matters until the determination by that court. it will, however, hear parties on the question of permission to appeal. the snp mp, joanna cherry, is one of the politicians who brought the case and spoke

to reporters outside court. iam i am absolutely delighted, i'm not surprised, because the feeling in court last week was very strong that we we re court last week was very strong that we were going to win this case. obviously, thejudges we were going to win this case. obviously, the judges have we were going to win this case. obviously, thejudges have not issued their reasons yet, but i think it was definitely a wealth of bad faith on behalf of borisjohnson and the government. this is a unanimous decision by scotland's highest court that the prorogation of parliament by borisjohnson was unlawful. as tommy sheppard, one of my co—petitioners has pointed out, now, parliament rep remains —— compartment remains prorogue, and the government are breaking the law. so we are calling for parliament to be recalled so that we can get on with scrutinising what this government is up to in relation to brexit. at is —— as a scottish mp and scottish lawyer, i am proud that scottish highest court has made its ruling. the british government have appealed it to the supreme court, we have three days set aside next week,

tuesday wednesday thursday, when the supreme court will look at this case and also, the english case and northern irish case. i really would like to pay tribute to our legal tea m like to pay tribute to our legal team and to the good law project, and to all our supporters. this litigation has been funded by crowdfunding by members of the public and i am grateful to them for their generosity in making it possible for us as mps to raise this action. it is a very proud day for scots law and the scottish legal system. how significant is it? it is very significant probably the most significant constitutional law decision in the last century across the united kingdom. it will have major repercussions. are still in a holding pattern until next week and for the minute, parliament holding pattern until next week and forthe minute, parliament remains suspended. yes, but this is unlawful, the highest court in scotla nd unlawful, the highest court in scotland has ruled that it is unlawful, unanimous, and in this wonderful union that we are told

about, the united kingdom, then the scottish court has jurisdiction over the uk parliament, we are scottish mps and we are represented there. joanna cherry, asking for an immediate recall of parliament, as has keir starmer, he has been speaking at the tuc congress in brighton, and let's go there now, ian watson is there for us. that's right, iam ian watson is there for us. that's right, i am joined ian watson is there for us. that's right, iamjoined by ian watson is there for us. that's right, i am joined by keir starmer now, and a shadow brexit secretary, but also director of public prosecutions. yourfirst but also director of public prosecutions. your first reaction, not something you usually hear in court, was wow. normallyjudges don't go into this space, the motivation of politicians for the decisions they make, sol motivation of politicians for the decisions they make, so i can only assume the judges felt that the evidence against boris johnson was overwhelming, and therefore, they found that he acted unlawfully in shutting down parliament. i think most people across the country never believed him anyway, but for a court to decide this and in such strong

language, is incredibly powerful. and you didn't expect it? now, i didn't, buti and you didn't expect it? now, i didn't, but i welcome it. i think what borisjohnson didn't, but i welcome it. i think what boris johnson should didn't, but i welcome it. i think what borisjohnson should do now is urgently recall parliament. we should be back there this afternoon or tomorrow, so should be back there this afternoon or tomorrow, so we can should be back there this afternoon or tomorrow, so we can debate this judgment and we can decide what to do next, so he must urgently recall parliament now. my crash course in scots law suggests that if he is not issued an order, he doesn't have to do this and he can wait for further judgment by the supreme court. is it yourjudgment, judgment by the supreme court. is it your judgment, though, politically and legally that if he doesn't reconstitute parliament, he is in breach of the law? they also said it was unlawful to prorogue under the circumstances. they said it was unlawful to prorogue, and therefore, i think he should do the right thing now, which is to reopen parliament, led us back to do ourjob and to decide what to do next. that is within his power, and we must take the decisions when we are recalled

and backed doing the job we are sent to parliament to do. you have been a lawyer for many years and some of the language that these law lords are using in scotland is said was that this was to frustrate parliament, they could see no other reason for the suspension of parliament, they said that it was also an attempt to stop a proper scrutiny by parliament. these are things you have argued politically, how rare is it forjudges to say that it legally. this is really where, judges are familiar with saying that the government has acted unlawfully, after perhaps misunderstanding the law. but to use words such as frustrating parliament to disbelieve the prime minister for the reason he shutdown parliament, thatis the reason he shutdown parliament, that is very powerful stuff, that goes way beyond suggesting that the prime minister has simply misinterpreted the law, that is one thing, it is saying, you have to liberally try to frustrate them and close down parliament. the reference and judgment to the documents is clear, they are saying the documents that they are seeing point only one

way, and that means that the public reason that boris johnson way, and that means that the public reason that borisjohnson has given for shutting down parliament is not one that the court believes. this is powerful stuff. a do you think he misled parliament? i have always thought that, most people across the country did, they didn't believe for a minute that this was just for a queen's speech. i think everybody thought this was because he wanted to shut down thought this was because he wanted to shutdown parliament has got —— to shutdown parliament has got —— to stop the scrutiny. you are going to stop the scrutiny. you are going to be talking about brexit policy this morning, and you did until the judgment came through. —— you are going to be talking. another member of the cabinet said that what labour should be doing is going into an election period campaigning unequivocally for remain, but should also have a referendum bill for you have that referendum. is that what you think as well? i'm happy to report that labour is in good shape, on the back of the victories we had la st on the back of the victories we had last week. you had a very robust

discussion, the deputy leader effectively turning over whatjeremy corbyn said yesterday. unlike cummings and johnson, we don't shut down debate in our party or parliament, while we have agreed is a referendum now of any deal that the government brings back and we would campaign to remain, and very importantly, we will commit to a referendum at the next election, thatis referendum at the next election, that is a commitmentjeremy referendum at the next election, that is a commitment jeremy corbyn made yesterday. a very important commitment, and the reasoning behind it, is that most people want this resolved, they are yearning for this impasse to be broken and therefore, we need a referendum that says effectively, are you prepared, do you want to leave on the terms on offer? or would you rather remain? that is a very important principle and we need to work through the details, but don't underestimate how important the statement jeremy corbyn made yesterday is about having a referendum. it was very significant here and very significant here and very significant for the trade unions, but tom watson is saying that it is fine to have a leave option under referendum, but why can't the party

officially committed to remain during that referendum campaign? why can you go through a hell general election campaign without saying whether you are a leave remain? can i emphasise that we haven't made a final decision on this, we have to listen to what the trade unions are saying, what the members and affiliate are saying. the fact that we have committed to a referendum, and essentially that asks do you wa nt and essentially that asks do you want to leave on the terms that are proposed or would you rather remain, thatis proposed or would you rather remain, that is a really significant commitment from what i hope will be an incoming labour government. whilst i have here is a lawyer, lets finish where we started, if boris johnson does not, as you are suggesting, bring parliament back now, given the scottish court said this was unlawful, do you think that legally, he is in breach of the law? i need to look closer at the judgment, there are other proceedings going on, but if he has acted unlawfully, then the axe, as

it were, is annulled, it was a wrongful act. —— then the act. that is why we want to be back in parliament, because if for no other reason, we ought to be in parliament saying, what does this judgment really tell us and what we do next? sarah keir starmer, thank you. keir starmer reacting to the court decision in scotland, also talking about labour's own divisions and deputy leader tom watson, perhaps saying there will be a referendum on labour will decide its position on leave or remain. whether that referendum comes, keir starmer thinks it is enough to hold the party together, but they should be campaigning unequivocally to remain. these argument will go on, but today, the most significant thing is the legaljudgment today, the most significant thing is the legal judgment in today, the most significant thing is the legaljudgment in scotland, that has put rocket boosters under the argument of the opposition to say that parliament should have been sitting during this difficult period, but i guess what people on the other side of the argument would

say that is the establishment political and legal ganging up to stop brexit? thank you, ian watson at the tuc congress in brighton. the anti—brexit barrister jo maugham, of the good law project, involved in this case, has been giving his reaction outside court. i have never been able to contemplate the possibility that the law of the united kingdom might be that the prime minister, with his slender mandate from a tiny fraction of the electorate could treat our sovereign and democratically elected parliament as a mere inconvenience to be tossed aside at his pleasure, andi to be tossed aside at his pleasure, and i am thrilled for every single person in the united kingdom who believes in elected representative democracy that scotland's" agrees. our work is not done, we now need to hear what the supreme court says and iam hear what the supreme court says and i am optimistic, as i have always been, that our courts will protect the rule of law

and parliamentary democracy. joe maugham, the barrister. just a reminder that the ruling from the court in scotland said that the suspension of parliament was unlawful because, in the words of the threejudges at unlawful because, in the words of the three judges at the court of session, it was motivated by the improper purpose of stymie in parliament. let's get more thoughts on this with norman smith at westminster. norman, the court has ruled that government's actions were unlawful, i guess the next question is, does boris johnson unlawful, i guess the next question is, does borisjohnson thing he acted unlawfully? does the government think it acted unlawfully? the short answer is that we don't know yet, number 10 is still formulating their response, but it seems to be any way you slice and dice this. it is a body blow for borisjohnson, notjust and dice this. it is a body blow for boris johnson, not just the and dice this. it is a body blow for borisjohnson, notjust the ruling and language with the judges deciding it is an egregious case, accusing borisjohnson deciding it is an egregious case, accusing boris johnson of trying deciding it is an egregious case, accusing borisjohnson of trying to stifle scrutiny, more air in that,

they suspected he was misleading the queen for the reasons for the prorogation, and why that matters as they seem to be questioning his motivation, suggesting that this is all about trying to get round parliamentary scrutiny, but only yesterday, we heard from boris johnson saying that it was nonsense to suggest that he was trying to get round parliament, give me a break, he said. apart from that, the other big body blow is whether he will now have to recall parliament, and it seems to me quite likely. particularly if the supreme court on tuesday upheld this ruling that he will, and as we have already heard, there are suggestions that boris johnson may have to move before we even get to tuesday, in other words, it we he may have to recall parliament today or tomorrow. if parliament today or tomorrow. if parliament is recalled, then as i understand it, he would have to put down a motion to ask parliament whether it wanted to go into recess

to have the party conferences. i think there is a very high degree of chance that mps would say, no, we are going to stay here, forget the party conferences this year, because this is such an important moment in our national history, parliament needs to be sitting. in other words, there is a realistic prospect that farfrom parliament there is a realistic prospect that far from parliament being there is a realistic prospect that farfrom parliament being banished to the hills for the next five weeks, parliament could sit for the remainder of those five weeks. on top of all that, borisjohnson is under pressure to release the paper surrounding his decisions to prorogue parliament. number 10 had given a decision that they are not going to release the papers, they say it will compromise the candid advice ministers receive, but it opens up the possibility that if parliament is recalled, mps could move to find borisjohnson in co nte m pt of move to find borisjohnson in contempt of parliament. that is if he refused to release those papers, soa he refused to release those papers, so a lot of may bes, but the

potential, the significant blows at a borisjohnson potential, the significant blows at a boris johnson is potential, the significant blows at a borisjohnson is now opening up, never mind the fact parliament, which is already inflicted a catalogue of defeats on him, including in one vote, which he himself billed as a vote of confidence, is going to be there, it's going to be sitting, is going to be watching, and no doubt, will be making borisjohnson‘s life difficult. just to recap, norman, even before the supreme court sits next tuesday for three days, you think there is a possibility that parliament could be recalled before then? i think there is a possibility, i'm not quite sure what the law is, keir starmer, former director of public prosecutions, eminent lawyer, is clearly of the view that parliament could and should be recalled forthwith, because the government, as the situation is at the moment, is acting unlawfully. i would imagine in the normal train of events, once

legal proceedings have begun, they have to be completed and i wouldn't think they had been completed until the supreme court of her the ruling. so i'm not a lawyer, but my guess would be that surely you have to wait until tuesday. but even then, if the appeal court uphold what has been a unequivocal ruling from the scottish court, parliament have to be recalled, opening up the prospect that parliament could sit throughout september into october and up until the 31st of october ruling, party conferences cancelled, and to pursue co nte m pt of conferences cancelled, and to pursue contempt of court proceeding against borisjohnson. there are all sorts of potential ramifications from this courtjudgment in of potential ramifications from this court judgment in edinburgh. thank you, norman, let's explore some of those legal questions now with our legal correspondent, clive coleman. just to take a step back, was this something of a surprise that the court of session overruled the initial hearing last week from

the initial hearing last week from the scottish courts? it depends who you talk to, really. i think that a lot of people, everyone thought this would eventually end up at the uk supreme court and eventually, probably as early as next tuesday, thatis probably as early as next tuesday, that is likely to happen. but if you think about this as a scottish case, scotla nd think about this as a scottish case, scotland voted to remain, it was some distance from westminster, if you like, and i think the law is involved in the case —— the lawyers involved in the case —— the lawyers involved thought they had a good chance and they have proven successful what seems to be a very unanimous ruling and strangling in their favour. my winning, if it is correct, is that the three judges in edinburgh today not made any order to cancel the suspension of parliament, but does that necessarily mean that parliament couldn't be recalled before the supreme court case next week? well, there is a degree of legal debate about this, but my understanding of the position is that if the government had wanted to suspend

this morning's ruling, the ruling against them, pending the appeal to the supreme court, they would have had to have made an application to do that, and that wasn't done, so there is one school of thought saying very firmly that in the light of the fact they had government haven't sought to suspend today's ruling, which left the prorogation of parliament, then parliament is free to sit, it is a matter for parliament, but parliament is free to sit again. now, there is some question as to whether that would be the position, in an english ruling, and also the position in relation to and also the position in relation to a scottish ruling, but that is one view from a lawyer is a very close to this case, who feel very strongly that the ruling stands until the appeal, today's ruling stands until the appeal and therefore, parliament is free to sit again. could the government, though, try to argue that until the supreme court delivers itsjudgment that until the supreme court delivers its judgment that it is not

obliged to come back? that they could make an application to the supreme court to that effect under the spring court rules, but these events a re the spring court rules, but these events are moving very quickly, and thus far, that has not been applied for, so it is a possibility, certainly, but as norman was saying, quoting keir starmer and others, there is a view that parliament can just sit again, and this isjust hours after it was prorogued, it is an extraordinary roller—coaster ride in terms of our constitutional arrangements and our constitutional law. is the government, as things stand, acting unlawfully? well, there is a ruling that the government has acted unlawfully, yes, so that ruling at the moment stands, it is subject to an appeal. the crown, of course, the order to prorogue parliament, is an order of

the crown, the crown resides throughout the entire united kingdom, so this is a ruling from the scottish court, but it is a ruling that has much wider application. 0k, clive, to stay with us, because i am going to bring in... i beg your pardon, i thought we had joanna terry, the snp mp, who isaqc we had joanna terry, the snp mp, who is a qc and was one of the parliamentarians involved in this case in scotland, but we do hope to talk to her very shortly, we had a clip of her earlier reacting to the decision in edinburgh. ——joanna cherry. we have to speak to her at more length very soon, but clive coleman is still with me. just on theissue coleman is still with me. just on the issue of the queen, then, there isa the issue of the queen, then, there is a question about the advice that borisjohnson as prime minister gave to the queen when he went along to the queen at balmoral to ask for permission, effectively, to suspend parliament. absolutely, that is what this really goes to the heart of, the advice given to the prime

minister by the queen, and that advice has been ruled unlawful, because it was given for an improper purpose, it was given for the purpose, it was given for the purpose of steyn being parliament, reducing the amount of time that mps had to debate. —— stymying parliament. that is an extraordinary phrase, stymying parliament. yes, this was the basis of the legal challenge, really looking at the prime minister's intent on giving that advice to the queen, the government of course argue that it was done entirely lawfully, a lawful prorogation, but the argument from not only the scottish courts, but also in the gina miller case, which we understand is due to be heard at the supreme court, that that appeal, because she was unsuccessful in the high court here, but her case is leapfrogging to the supreme court. the argument really was about the intent, what did borisjohnson really intend to do? what was his really intend to do? what was his real intention behind giving his advice to the queen to prorogue?

intention is a difficult thing to tie down, but we seemingly have a very strong ruling from the scottish court about that. just finally, just to be absolutely clear about what is happening next week in the supreme court, take us through that. well, we are waiting to hear the precise arrangements, my understanding is that there is a hearing date that has been set aside for the 17th for the gina miller case. there will be a question now as to whether the scottish case is on its way to the supreme court, which case would be heard first? indeed, the supreme court has the power to roll them up and hear them together, that is rather what happened with gina miller's first case, after she challenge the triggering of the article 50 process, so we could see that happening again in what would be frankly a huge... i that happening again in what would be franklya huge... i mean, gina miller's initial case was the biggest constitutional case we have seenin biggest constitutional case we have seen in decades and this would be every bit as big, if not bigger. 0k, clive, thank you very much for taking us through all of that, clive

coleman, our legal affairs correspondent. we do have to speak tojoanna correspondent. we do have to speak to joanna cherry correspondent. we do have to speak tojoanna cherry of correspondent. we do have to speak to joanna cherry of the correspondent. we do have to speak tojoanna cherry of the snp very soon, but right now, let's take a look at some other news. the government is to allow international students studying at uk universities to stay in the country for two years after graduating. the announcement by the home office reverses a decision made by theresa may as home secretary in 2012 which forced foreign students to leave the country within four months of completing their degree. figures from the uk council for international student affairs show that last year, more than 450,000 overseas students were studying in the uk. china sends significantly more students to the uk than any other nation — with 106,000 students from the country deciding to study here in the uk. and according to the university body university uk, overseas students contribute £26 billion to the uk economy. the business secretary andrea leadsom says giving overseas students more time to find jobs in the uk after graduating will help the uk's economy.

the uk government's approach is to be open to the brightest and the best from around the world, so we already have record numbers of international students, and we hope to have a 30% increase by this policy of letting them stay for a couple of years afterwards, and for me as business secretary, my hope is that we will see a number of them contributing to some of the amazing technological innovations that we are taking forward in that global, outward facing the united kingdom, once we have left the eu. for many students, if they are head down, focusing on theirfinals, they often don't spend the time applying forjobs and going round shaking hands with new potential employers until after they graduate, and so it is important that they then have time in which to apply for roles, to wait for a programme to start, for example, if it is a graduate programme, so i think it is a good balance now, giving them two years. and obviously, in the hope

that at the end of that, if they are in roles which are important to the uk's economy, they'll be able to apply through the appropriate work route to be able to stay on even longer and continue to contribute. joining me now is alp mehmet, chairman of migration watch uk — an organisation that campaigns for reduced immigration. thank you very much for coming along, what do you make of this move from the government?” along, what do you make of this move from the government? i don't see the purpose for it, frankly. ijust don't understand why the present system is not working in the way that the new system is allegedly going to work. it is not a case of leaving after four months, having completed your degree, you have four months in which to find an appropriatejob. what months in which to find an appropriate job. what is months in which to find an appropriatejob. what is now going to happen is we are going to do away with that four—month period, there is going to be two years in which you could take anyjob that you can

find. i don't think that serves our purposes, our employment purposes. most purposes, our employment purposes. m ost rece nt purposes, our employment purposes. most recent figures... do you disagree then with what andrea leadsom was just saying that it will boost the economy? do you have any evidence that graduates are just taking any job they evidence that graduates are just taking anyjob they can find? andrea leadsom said in another interview that more than 50% went into stem jobs. 5096 of students, overseas stu d e nts jobs. 5096 of students, overseas students going into stem jobs, no, i don't believe that. thatjust isn't happening, and in fact, where the opportunity has been there for qualified students to take up jobs, only about 5000 were taking them up, so the demand, clearly, isn't there. our latest figures show that there was something like 900,000 who were

either inactive or unemployed young people in this country. what is it exactly that we are after? universities, just so happens there isa universities, just so happens there is a report today from the oecd, suggesting that the government should be doing much more to address poor performing universities and poor performing universities and poor degrees, where, frankly, people are being attracted to do these courses, simply to get into the country, rather than for any qualifications they may be acquiring. if students are in the uk to study at a well recognised university and coming out with a quality degree, shouldn't they have a chance longer than four months to try to find a job here? that it is my point, they do have the opportunity of doing that now. are you saying that they should take any

job going for two years, in case one should come up that they wish to ta ke should come up that they wish to take up that is at the sort of level that the government allegedly is looking for young people to fill? is this approach putting off the best and brightest from coming to the uk to study? most countries would want that sort of calibre of student to their universities to study. they are. our universities are burgeoning with overseas applications, our best universities. there is no shortage. you mentioned earlier in one of the clips that chinese students are carving in increasing numbers at a record level now. we demand is already there. it is the quality of education that a tt ra cts is the quality of education that attracts people, not whether or not they can find a way of staying in

they can find a way of staying in the country and definitely having completed their studies. they should be going back, many of these young students, back to the countries that have sent them here, with a view to acquiring skills and education that is required in their countries, not to stay on here and do anyjob that happens to come along. just finally and briefly, you think they should be perhaps a greater screening process of those applications as people come in to ensure they are doing the kind of degrees that would be of economic benefit to the uk? certainly, i have never had any problem with young people from all over the world coming here to take up over the world coming here to take up degree over the world coming here to take up degree courses over the world coming here to take up degree courses and completing them and going back to the countries that they came from. that goes without saying. there are no limits to that and that should continue. what we are talking about now here is something very different. the

people who are being encouraged to stay on, frankly, i those who are looking for a life in another country. it happens to be this one. that is not what higher education should be about. 0k, chairman of migration watch uk, thank you very much. let's catch up with the latest we've had a rather cloudy stout today. outbreaks of rain. sunshine coming through across parts of northern parts. some blue skies here in wales. blue skies across scotland and northern england. some showers here. further south, and northern england. some showers here. furthersouth, cloudy across the five south of england. patchy rain into the afternoon. quite a blustery afternoon for many of us. gusts up to 40 mph quite wildly.

maximum temperatures of 21 celsius. 39, the rain across the five south will eventually clear away. outbreaks of rain moving into northern ireland and scotland, northern england and wales during thursday. there will be brighter skies. temperatures 18 celsius. feeling quite humid as well. goodbye for now. hello this is bbc newsroom live. the headlines... scotland's highest civil court rules that the suspension of parliament is unlawful — because it was motivated by the "improper purpose of stymying parliament". mixed messages from labour as deputy leader tom watson calls for a referendum before an election, and says they should back remain, putting him at odds withjeremy corbyn the home office is overturning immigration controls

introduced by theresa may to allow international students to stay longer in the uk after finishing their degree. a record number of migrants crossing the channel — border force picked up 86 people yesterday. record numbers of stores disappeared from britain's high streets in the first half of this year, according to a report from a leading accounting firm. sport now and for a full round up, from the bbc sport centre. the england manager gareth southgate pointed at ‘ridiculous mistakes and poor decisisons as his side conceded three goalds against lowly kosovo in euro qualifying. but they still won 5—3 to maintain their 100% record

in the group. kosovo had been unbeaten in 15 matches and they made an incredible start, a defensive blunder letting in valon berisha with just over 30 second on the clock. despite that, england responded with goals from raheem sterling, harry kane and two from jadon sancho, hsi first goals for his country. with a kosovo own—goal as well, england were 5—1 up at the break. england were sloppy again in the second half, kosova scoring twice without reply although kane did have a penalty saved. the crowd were certainly entertained but england have much to improve the outstanding features and the pier features the outstanding features and the pierfeatures are the outstanding features and the pier features are clear to everybody. we do not need to get the video out to look through it. bad individual mistakes, a bad start to the game. i like the way we showed composure to recover from that initial mistake and the use of the ball throughout the first—half was excellent, right the way the team. he was happy with what he saw in the first half. he has banged on about

the sloppy mistakes that we keep giving. we have got to let them earn their goals by scoring good goals. we give them all three of their goals. that was kosovo's first defeat in almost two years, but they have slipped to third in the group now. their swiss manager bernard challandes made a few headlines pre—match with his energetic news conference and this was him at half—time waiting for his players. he felt that one of those england goals should have been disallowed for offside. he still saw the camera and give it a little smile. it was not easy in the dressing room to speak with the players, 5—1. it was very, very hard. but the team has shown a good reaction and we as a side, to play,

to continue to play, take risks, and if it is possible to keep the ball also and to try anything for the offensive. and it was good. i can congratulate the players. and we can be proud with these players. a much changed republic of ireland side beat bulgaria 3—1 in a friendly in dublin. the game was level at one—all inside the last 10 minutes but goals from kevin long and a debut goal from james collins saw manager mick mccarthy's six—game unbeaten run continue in his second spell in charge. the details of the first women's football weekend have been confirmed. the event will take place over the weekend of the 16th to the 17th of november during the men's international break. wsl fixtures will include a north london derby at the new 62,000—capacity tottenham hotspur stadium, liverpool also hosting everton in a merseyside derby and chelsea facing manchester united.

the fa say that this will be another landmark moment in the growing popularity of the women's game. maisie summers newton has laid down a marker to british rival ellie simmonds at the world para swimming championships in london. she won her 200 metres individual medley heat this morning — finishing nearly five seconds ahead of simmonds in third. both qualify for tonight's final. meanwhile, alice tai remains on course for a third gold medal in as many days — after winning her heat in the 100 metre butterfly event. that's all the sport for now. i'll have more for you in the next hour. more now on the ruling from the scottish courts this morning... it said the prorogation of parliament was unlawful. the snp mp, joanna cherry, is one of the politicians who brought the case

and she is in edinburgh. you are delighted with this ruling. you are delighted with this ruling. you are delighted with this ruling. you are calling for an immediate return to parliament. why do you think the court today found differently from the hearing last week? well, of course, this is scotland's supreme court. three judges in scotland's supreme court of civil appeal ruled unanimously that the prorogation was unlawful because it was done for the express purpose of the stymying parliament, scrutinising the work of the executive on the run up to the crucial summit on the 17th and 18th of october. you are a qc as well. our legal correspondent was saying as far as he is aware, the government has made no application to suspend today's reeling. that is correct. you can confirm that. what is the immediate impact of that? does that mean that parliament could return? yes, it does. the highest

court in the british isles that has ruled on this matter. i would remind your viewers that the scottish supreme court is the higher court than the first court in england. that means that the highest court in the land that has ruled on the matter so far has ruled that the prorogation was unlawful. it is highly significant that all three judges took that view. because the british government's lawyer did not move to suspend the judgment, it stands that the prorogation is unlawful, which means that parliament could be resumed and i and my snp colleagues are calling on parliament to be resumed. we want to get down there and scrutinise this minority government in order to protect our constituents from the disastrous economic and social consequences of a no—deal brexit. what is the process by which mps could return to parliament on the back of this ruling? well, i don't

wa nt to back of this ruling? well, i don't want to give you chapter and verse on that. since i have come out of court, i have been in media interviews so i do not want to give you a firm view. as far as the law stands, the order to prorogue parliament has been ruled unlawful. that is the law as it stands and that means there is nothing to prevent that means there is nothing to p reve nt m ps that means there is nothing to prevent mps from going back into the jobs at westminster. that said, we are in the extraordinary situation ofa are in the extraordinary situation of a british government who thinks they can play fast and loose with they can play fast and loose with the law. it has come up against the scottish legal and constitutional tradition, which is that the executive i not supreme. the executive i not supreme. the executive can be held to account by the courts, as well as parliament. the courts have said that parliament should get back to the job of scrutinising the executive. the executive's attempts to do so were unlawful. i am executive's attempts to do so were unlawful. iam proud executive's attempts to do so were unlawful. i am proud as a scot and asa unlawful. i am proud as a scot and as a scottish lawyer that the

scottish courts have taken this unanimous decision. does the court have to make a ruling cancelling suspension? is that within the law of the courts? if something has been done and it is unlawful, it has no effect, it is void due to lack of legality. it is true to say the case is going to be supreme court next week, the united kingdom's supreme court, and will be heard alongside the english case and the northern irish case. it was open to the government's lawyer to move this morning, in effect of the judgment to be suspended, they do not do so. the law stands at this prorogation is unlawful. as things stand, would you welcome the cancelling of the party conferences so that mps could put all their focus on sorting out brexit? well, the party conferences are important. it is important for members of the particle parties to

get together and debate policy. i do not necessarily think the party conferences have to be cancelled. parliament can set any party conferences parliament can set any party co nfe re nces ca n parliament can set any party conferences can proceed but that is a very much a matter for the labour party and conservative party. the snp conference is not until the middle of october when we are back anyway. i want to ask you a question about how this impacts on the queen. just to remind our viewers, the court ruled the suspension was unlawful because, to quote the judges, it was motivated by the improper purpose of stymying parliament. does this put the queen in an awkward position, given the advice of boris johnson in an awkward position, given the advice of borisjohnson gave to her? borisjohnson has placed her majesty in an awkward position by giving her advice that has proved to be unlawful. this action was taken by me and my co—petitioners, not against the queen. as was commented last week, the queen did not really have much choice, she only had the advice given to her. the court has

now ruled it was unlawful. this is not a criticism of her majesty in any way, it is a criticism of boris johnson and the government. that was not my intention to you. what i was getting at was could you see the queen potentially being drawn back into this. convention says that she isn't, but in these extraordinary circumstances, could you see the queen being drawn into this argument further? well, i think the queen has been put in a difficult position to make position by borisjohnson. it would not be my wish to put her in a difficult position. the matter is in the hands of the courts and the courts have ruled. borisjohnson like any other citizen has to obey the law. i am calling on him to respect the decision of the scottish courts. i am dismayed from the briefings from ten downing st suggesting this is a political decision. i can ensure the scottish

tradition judiciary decision. i can ensure the scottish traditionjudiciary are independent. iam traditionjudiciary are independent. i am calling on the british government to respect the rule of law and respect this ruling. joanna cherie mp, thank you for your time. let's head to westminster an norman smith. number ten have been rowing back very hard that they are in any way accusing the scottish judges of being political. they say they will not comment on the ruling and the fairly scathing language in the ruling, nor will they recall parliament, they say, head of a decision by the supreme court on tuesday. we heard earlierfrom keir starmer, janet kerry and others, saying they won parliament back this afternoon. —— joanna saying they won parliament back this afternoon. ——joanna cherry. the government are saying, no,. i am joined by dominic grieve. your take on this? this is a serious

indictment on the government because leaving aside whether the ruling in law is correct, it is quite clear that on the facts, the judges in edinburgh concluded that the government's explanations for prorogue parliament were simply an act when —— were simply inadequate. it was not to reset the government and have a suspension of parliament for a short time and then he queen's speech, it was to prevent us from holding the government to account. i would hope the government would now realise the extent of the crisis it has created an recall parliament immediately. so regardless of the appeal in the supreme court? immediately. so regardless of the appeal in the supreme court7m would be much more sensible that the government should say, we are dropping the appeals on both sides and parliament will set and arranged for us to sit within the next 26 hours. and to be clear, if parliament is recalled, what happens then? if we are recalled, the house

of commons will continue its work as before. it has been suggested we should adjourn the session for the party conferences, but it was clear last week and is tired of this week, that if given the opportunity to vote on that, the house of commons will decide not to adjourn because of the nature of the crisis the country is facing. it is quite wrong for us to go away for three weeks. he makes that happen? to mps and somehow engineer a vote on cancelling the recess? no, if we are back, it is for the government to bring ina back, it is for the government to bring in a recess if it wants it and for parliament to refuse. it also opens up, does it not, the possibility that boris johnson will have to release those papers around prorogation, which you succeeded in passing a motion on this week? yes, clearly they are supposed to be in place before parliament. even if parliament is prorogued, that should still be done. clearly, for the house of commons to take action

against the prime minister if he fails to do this, and the government fails to do this, and the government fails to do this, and the government fails to do this, we cannot do that when we are not sitting. if we are back, then we would be in a position to ta ke back, then we would be in a position to take action. should the government feel and its duty to divulge this information. one other element raised by the scottish court was a suggestion that mrjohnson had misdirected the queen. this has been a lurking issue. it is essential to our constitution and the relationship between the prime minister and the queen is one of the utmost confidentiality and the utmost confidentiality and the utmost good faith. it is essential. if it were to be the case that the government had misled the queen about the reasons for suspending parliament and the motives for it, i would be a very serious matter indeed. my view, that would be the moment for mrjohnson to resign, and very swiftly. so, let'sjust be

clear about this, the scottish court has already said they are concerned mrjohnson has misdirected the queen. how would that then lead to a situation where mrjohnson might have to resign? because it is a shameful act. we operate, as i try to explain any debate yesterday, we operate in very good constitution in this country but it is based on good faith and trust from top to bottom. what a minister says at the dispatch box must be accurate and truthful. if it is an accurate, it must be corrected as quickly as possible. when the government says it is doing something for a particular reason, there must be able to sustain that and if they are doing it for another reason, that is a breach of one of the fundamental tenants of how we operate. certainly, it must be the case that if the relationship between the prime minister and the cell phone is concerned, it is one of co m plete cell phone is concerned, it is one of complete mutual could the entry

—— the prime minister is confidentiality. otherwise, our constitution cannot work. are you suggesting it is almost a matter of honour? there is no constitutional mechanism to forcing him as a result of this to do so. i think if that we re of this to do so. i think if that were to be the case that this had happened, boris johnson will find himself in an untenable position in parliament and i hope it would be untenable, not just because parliament and i hope it would be untenable, notjust because of the opposition, that because every member of the conservative party that believes in our constitution would simply say, it is over. dominic grieve, thank you very much for our time. deep, deep dominic grieve, thank you very much for ourtime. deep, deep waters here. the politics of this are becoming increasingly difficult and dangerous for mrjohnson, as we heard therefrom dominic grieve's suggestion that if he did mislead and misdirect the queen, then maybe he should have to stand down as prime minister. norman, thank you

very much for that. norman smith with more reaction to that decision in the scottish courts to declare the suspension of parliament unlawful. now it is time for the business news. the us state of california has passed a new law which will make so—called gig economy companies pay holiday and sick pay to their workers. it will come as a blow to companies such as uber whose business plans are based on treating their workers as independent contractors. uber and its rival lyft say they'll press to put the issue to califonian voters in a referendum. new research on the high street crisis show that an average of 16 shops have closed every day this year. pwc and the local data company report that clothes shops are closing at the fastest rate, followed by restaurants, estate agents and pubs. but more takeaways

and gyms are opening. activist shareholders in sports direct are seeking to remove the retailer's founder, chief executive — and majority shareholder — mike ashley. they are highly unlikely to succeed but at a meeting today they'll raise questions over what they describe as "strange mis—steps" such as the takeover of house of fraser. hello and good morning. let's begin with that meeting of sports direct shareholders, with big questions asked of its boss mike ashley. he's been on a spending spree — buying up troubled retailers and adding them to his high street empire. but recently that empire building has run into trouble. after several delays to the company's latest results, eventually published in latejuly, mr ashley admitted he regretted the takeover of house of fraser which was said to have terminal problems. and it revealed that tax authorities in belgium had issued

the retailer a £600m bill. i'm joined now by the retail analyst kate hardcastle. thank you for being with us today. the evidence suggests the shareholders have a good case but of course they don't have the clout of a majority to unseat. mike ashley as the majority shareholder and that is going to be the first and last in terms of removing him. what we do understand when events like this happen is the real challenge to the trust and lack of respect they have in this leader. he has been successful in creating from one shop, a brand in the 80s that has gone on to dominate the sports industry. with information coming in fromjd sports industry. with information coming in from jd sports showing huge increases in sales and healthy profits, there is a question how much our high street can offer to brand and its competitors within the fashion industry, where we are already seeing challenges to our

high street, and how much pressure is going to come from competition, too. what would you say about what is happening behind the scenes at sports direct and whether they are adapting their strategy, which they had to admit in the recent results we re had to admit in the recent results were not going well? the idea they would pick up brands like house of fraser, and it has been rumoured this week links of london have potentially come out buying a from mike ashley, this distracted from the dayjob and that is really going to affect them and their profits. that will be causing most concern to shareholders. really in this very cut—throat retail world we are expecting brands to focus and stop being generalists and have clear visions in terms of are going to satisfy and delight consumers. while he is picking up different brands and different sectors and industries and different sectors and industries and trying to do turnaround plans from them, it seems like too much, too soon, and taking the focus away from the realjob at hand. we do

here he runs quite a tight ship in the head office and there are not enough chiefs to run the outlets he is buying. do you sense today's meeting with the shareholders in general will bring about any change? simply put, i think retail needs far more investment, far more resource and much more collaboration with consumers to be successful. and trying to run a lean and tight ship when you are delivering on all of thatis when you are delivering on all of that is difficult. whilst i think there will be huge amount of noise and complaints in times of the way the business has been run, i doubt with that is difficult. whilst i think there will be huge amount of noise and complaints in times of the way the business has been run, i doubt without figurehead at the helm of the ship that things are going to change are and deliver for them. thank time for a look at the markets.

investors in europe today in a pretty good mood today. there are signs of the us china trade war easing with beijing announcing it will exempt 16 types of us products from additional retaliatory tariffs. there's excitement in particular about germany after clear signals from the chancellor and its finance minister that the governement is poised to invest in financial stimulus to avoid a recession. lse itself is the biggest riser on the ftse because of that takeover approach. that is all from me. let's get up—to—date with the weather. simon king has however things are looking? things are looking more settled as we go into this weekend. it has not been that way this morning. lots of cloud and outbreaks of rain this morning. this was the scene earlier on in devon. a misty start to the day. the

rain is courtesy of ex hurricane dorian. it is moving eastwards out of iceland. the white lines of the isobars are quite close together, sew breezy conditions together. that rain and cloud is clearing to the south. we've got some sunny spells. sunny spells continuing across scotland. there will be some heavy showers moving in from the west. centring to for northern ireland and northern england, through wales and england. further south, the rain is going to linger on throughout this afternoon. very cloudy here. it is windy wherever you are. gusts of windy wherever you are. gusts of wind 30 to 110 mph. a maximum temperature this afternoon, up to 18 celsius up to 21 celsius. through this evening and tonight, that rain we re this evening and tonight, that rain were clear away from the south. then were clear away from the south. then we have got that extra tropical storm gabrielle, that is going to move in across the uk. while it brings in some wet weather, the

tropical name of it, more humid air moving in across the uk. it will be pretty wet in northern ireland into scotland. a bit of rain for a time in north england and wales. quite cloudy. sunny spells in northern ireland. temperature is 15 celsius. it won't feel tropical here. further east, those temperatures getting up to the mid—20s. 23 r 26 celsius. quite humid as well. a cold front moving south through friday. pressure through friday. this high—pressure system develops. for most of us on friday, driver sunshine. quite breezy in the far north of scotland. the chance of rain here. for most of us, dry and sunny. temperatures down by a degree or so. 21 celsius. going into the weekend, temperatures start to rise again. we are looking at those temperatures getting up to 22 to 25

celsius in the south—east of england during sunday. lots of fine and dry weather over the weekend, sunshine, and temperatures up into the high teens to mid 20s. goodbye.

you're watching bbc newsroom live — it's midday and these are the main stories this morning: scotland's highest civil court rules that the suspension of parliament is unlawful because it was motivated by the "improper purpose of stymying parliament". the advice given by the government to her majesty the queen to programme parliament from the 9th of september to the 14th of october was unlawful and that therefore, the prorogation itself is unlawful. the government will challenge the ruling in london's supreme court next week, but if they fail, rebel tory mp dominic grieve says the prime minister should resign. if the prime minister should resign. it were to be the government if it were to be the case that the government had misled the queen about the reasons for suspending parliament and the motives for it, that would be a very serious matter

indeed. my view would then be the moment for boris johnson to indeed. my view would then be the moment for borisjohnson to resign, and very swiftly. mixed messages from labour as deputy leader tom watson calls for a referendum before an election, and says they should back remain, putting him at odds withjeremy corbyn. i will argue that our position going into that election should be totally clear. we should unambiguously and unequivocally back remain. the home office is overturning immigration controls introduced by theresa may, to allow international students to stay longer in the uk after finishing their degree. 86 people attempt to cross the english channel in a single day — it's claimed people smugglers use threats about brexit to pressure migrants. coming up, a warning from car insurers on driverless cars — they say they'll cause more accidents without proper regulation.

good afternoon. welcome to bbc newsroom live. i'm annita mcveigh. borisjohnson is facing demands for an immediate recall of parliament after scotland's highest civil court ruled that his decision to suspend parliament for five weeks was unlawful. a panel of three judges at the court of session in edinburgh found in favour of a cross—party group of mps and peers who were challenging the prime minister's move. the judges said they believe mrjohnson's decision to suspend was motivated by the "improper purpose of styming parliament". the government have dismissed claims to recall parliament. the judges also added: "the court will accordingly make an order declaring that the prime minister's advice to hm the queen and the prorogation which followed thereon was unlawful and is thus null and of no effect." judge lord doherty originally dismissed a challenge

against the suspension at the court of session last wednesday, saying it was for politicians and not the courts to decide. but three judges of the inner house, the supreme civil court in scotland, disagreed with lord doherty‘s ruling. each opinion expresses the view that the advice given by the government to her majesty the queen to prorogue parliament from the 9th of september to the 14th of october was unlawful and that therefore, the prorogation itself is unlawful. the court is conscious that its view differs from that of the divisional court of the queen's bench division in england and wales, and the matter is therefore likely to require resolution by the united kingdom supreme court. this morning, the court does not propose to make any ancillary orders, pending that resolution, and it will therefore reserve all incidental or related matters until the determination by that court.

it will, however, hear parties on the question of permission to appeal. earlier i spoke to the snp mp joanna cherry, who was part of the group who brought the case. i asked her why she thinks the court today, found differently to the court last week. of course, this is scotland's supreme court, three judges of course, this is scotland's supreme court, threejudges in scotland's supreme court of civil appeal, who have reeled unanimously, all threejudges are appeal, who have reeled unanimously, all three judges are showing separate opinions, that the prorogation was unlawful because it was done for the express purpose of stymying parliament, preventing them from scrutiny and the work of the executive in the run—up to the crucial executive eu council summit on the 17th and 18th of october. you area qc on the 17th and 18th of october. you are a qc as well, our legal correspondent was saying a few minutes ago that as far as he was aware, the government has made no application to suspend today's

ruling, you can confirm that? yes. what is the immediate impact of that? could parliament return? yes, it does, because the highest court in the british isles that has ruled on this matter, and i would remind you of years at the scottish supreme civil court is higher than the court of first instance in england and has the samejurisdiction of first instance in england and has the same jurisdiction under the union parliament as the english courts, so that means that the highest court in the land that has ruled on the matter so far has real that the prorogation is unlawful and highly significant from a legal perspective that all three judges took that view because the british lawyers did not move to suspend the supreme court appeal, then it stands and the prorogation is unlawful, meaning that parliament could be resumed and i am by snp mp collea g u es resumed and i am by snp mp colleagues are calling on parliament to be resumed. we want to get down there and scrutinise this minority government in order to protect our constituents from the disastrous economic and social consequences of a no—deal brexit.

let's get more now from our assistant political editor, norman smith is at westminster. just bring us up to date, if you would, with what the government's initial response to this is. the government is trying to dampen down at the fury and say, hang on a second, there is going to be an appeal, wait until the supreme court gives itsjudgment appeal, wait until the supreme court gives its judgment on tuesday, and they suggested that this is always likely to end up in the supreme court, so everyone just calm down, is what they are saying. they have rebuffed the idea that parliament is going to be re—called this afternoon, as keir starmer and joanna cherry and others have been demanding, they say that is not going to happen and to do so would be to pre—empt any decision about the supreme court. they have also gone out of their way to hose down reports that some in number 10 had been highly critical of the scottish judges and the language they had been using, the slight inference that they were being political,

number 10 saying absolutely not, they will not express any view on they will not express any view on thejudgment or the they will not express any view on the judgment or the language used by thosejudges, which was the judgment or the language used by those judges, which was fairly striking to say the least. two elements open up, one is if the appeal is lost, then it would seem unavoidable, parliament will have to be recalled, all sorts of implications followed from that, but secondly, we also heard a short time ago from dominic grieve, former conservative attorney general, suggesting that if borisjohnson has misled the queen, as is implied without being explicitly stated in the court documents, then he should resign. this is what he said. this has been a lacking issue, it is actually essential to our constitution that the relationship between the prime minister and the queen is one of the utmost confidentiality and utmost good faith, central. so if it were to be the case that the government had

misled the queen about the reasons for suspending parliament and the motives for it, that would be a very serious matter indeed. my view that it would then be the moment for borisjohnson to it would then be the moment for boris johnson to resign, it would then be the moment for borisjohnson to resign, and very swiftly. iam now i am now joined iam nowjoined by i am nowjoined by ed davey, iam nowjoined by ed davey, boris johnson should resign, is it heading that way? it could well do, if he has been found to mislead the queen, i think the whole nation could be deeply shocked and alarmed, and this isa deeply shocked and alarmed, and this is a prime minister who we know has already said he might not obey a law in parliament, so he is behaving in the most disgraceful way. it may be that the supreme court next week overturns its decision, but that three judges, independent judges, could come to this conclusion today isa could come to this conclusion today is a real blow to the government, and it also backs what liberal democrats and others have been saying, that this government should not have silenced parliament.“ saying, that this government should

not have silenced parliament. if the supreme court upheld the ruling and parliament is recalled, what follows then? i think this still will have marked the copybook of the prime minister. the prime minister is getting a reputation for breaking the unwritten rules of pushing constitutional conventions to their limits. that means when people are looking at our parliament, they are seeing a prime minister causing chaos, they are seeing a prime minister behaving in a way which british prime ministers have never behaved in the past, of any party, and for boris johnson to behave like this, i think he is bringing our democracy into disrepute and so what liberal democrats will be arguing is that this is an issue about brexit and so on, but it is actually an issue about our country. we cannot have a prime minister causing this amount of chaos and disruption, trying to rewrite the rules and break the rules. if it is so serious, then shouldn't you, the rebel alliance, cut to the chase and

put down a motion of no confidence in boris johnson? it may well come to that, but what we have been arguing is to prevent further economic and political chaos by stopping a no—deal brexit, and the battle over the last few days, which the liberal democrats have been involved in, making it very clear that our guiding argument at the moment is to stop a no—deal brexit, which we do so much damage and cause even more chaos. we have a prime minister who is willing to cause that chaos and causing political chaos at the same time, and it is the liberal democrats, as part of the liberal democrats, as part of the cross—party efforts, to try to get our country back on track. ed davey, thank you so much. the stakes are enormously high here, the next stop is the supreme court on tuesday. tuesday is the next stop indeed, unless of course something happens in between now and then, entirely possible. let's get more reaction from the tuc congress, which is happening in brighton. ian

watson is there. yes, reaction indeed, quite an interesting reaction from the unite union. we have often said that trade unions are often on the wrong side of what you see as unfair laws, this time, it seems to be the prime minister. what is your suggestion for what should happen to the prime minister if he disobeys the prime minister if he disobeys the scottish courts? it certainly is an extraordinary decision that has come out of scotland and my advice to the prime minister is that he should steer clear of scotland, otherwise he may find himself under a citizens arrest up there. but seriously, it is an indication of the disastrous mess that our democracy has been brought to by the behaviour and actions of this prime minister, it is an extraordinary situation. instead of parliament and the prime minister in particular seeking to find a way through, through the divisions on brexit and theissue through the divisions on brexit and the issue that has caused immense

divisions and polarisation in our nation, he is adding fuel to the fire. it seems to me that the only political party that is trying to heal the nation is the labour party. borisjohnson and heal the nation is the labour party. boris johnson and the conservatives have dismissed half the nation, the liberals have dismissed the other half, it is onlyjeremy corbyn acting ina half, it is onlyjeremy corbyn acting in a statesman like a way, he is trying to guide our way through to unite the nation, and what has happened in scotland is extraordinary. you're talking about jeremy corbyn uniting the nation, but you have heard his deputy leader today, tom watson, effectively less than 26 hours behind closed doors with jeremy corbyn than 26 hours behind closed doors withjeremy corbyn a position on brexit, he says that position is rubbish and they should be campaigning unequivocally to remain and they should be calling for a referendum rather than election. it's sad, now and again, tom pops up from where he has been hiding and comes up with something and instead of supporting his leader, it is normally to undermine it. i don't

know why he does it, less and less people listen to him. if he wants to continue to languish on the fringes of the labour party, but his views don't really matter what matters is getting ready for a general election on which labour can offer a real choice for the british people to mend this broken britain that we have, heal our nations and transform our society to a fairer society. you are convinced that the decision you took alongsidejeremy are convinced that the decision you took alongside jeremy corbyn are convinced that the decision you took alongsidejeremy corbyn will stand despite tom watson's interventionwnd? tom watson won't have any impact on anybody. the truth of the matter is that jeremy corbyn is good at consulting, we will come up with a policy that unites the party and takes us to victory whenever the election comes. thank you very much, the leader of the unite union, not too impressed by the intervention of tom watson on brexit. thank you, ian watson at the tuc congress in ryton, we will

continue to bring you reaction to that ruling from the court of session in edinburgh on the suspension of parliament, but right now, we say goodbye to viewers on bbc two. our legal correspondent, clive coleman, told me that although the judgment came as a surprise to some, it had been expected by others. it depends who you talk to, really. i think that a lot of people, everyone thought this would eventually end up at the uk supreme court and eventually, probably as early as next tuesday, that is likely to happen. but if you think about this was a scottish case, scotland voted to remain, it was some distance from westminster, if you like, and i think the lawyers involved thought they had a good chance and they have proven successful what seems to be a fairly unanimous ruling and strong ruling in their favour.

my reading, if it is correct, is that the three judges in edinburgh today have not made any order to cancel the suspension of parliament, but does that necessarily mean that parliament couldn't be recalled before the supreme court case next week? well, there is a degree of legal debate about this, but my understanding of the position is that if the government had wanted to suspend this morning's ruling, the ruling against them, pending the appeal to the supreme court, they would have had to have made an application to do that, and that wasn't done, so there is one school of thought saying very firmly that in light of the fact they had government haven't sought to suspend today's ruling, which lifts the prorogation of parliament, then parliament is free to sit, it is a matter for parliament, but parliament is free to sit again. now, there is some question as to whether that would be the position in an english ruling, and also the position in relation to a scottish ruling, but that is one

view from a lawyers very close to this case, who feel very strongly that the ruling stands until the appeal, today's ruling stands until the appeal and therefore, parliament is free to sit again. could the government, though, try to argue that until the supreme court delivers its judgment that it is not obliged to come back? they could make an application to the supreme court to that effect under the supreme court rules, but these events are moving very quickly, and thus far, that has not been applied for, so it is a possibility, certainly, but as norman was saying, quoting keir starmer and others, there is a view that parliament can just sit again, and this isjust hours after it was prorogued, it is an extraordinary roller—coaster ride in terms of our constitutional arrangements and our

constitutional law. the headlines on bbc news: scotland's highest civil court rules that the suspension of parliament is unlawful — because it was motivated by the "improper purpose of stymying parliament". divisions within labour over brexit — deputy leader tom watson calls for a referendum before an election, and says they should back remain, putting him at odds withjeremy corbyn. a record number of migrants crossing the channel — border force picked up 86 people yesterday. sport now, here's olly foster. the england manager gareth southgate pointed at ridiculous mistakes and poor decisisons as his side conceded three goals against lowly kosovo in euro qualifying.

but they still won 5—3 to maintain their 100% record in the group. kosovo had been unbeaten in 15 matches and they made an incredible start, a defensive blunder letting in valon berisha with just over 30 second on the clock. despite that, england responded with goals from raheem sterling, harry kane and two from jadon sancho, hsi first goals for his country. with a kosovo own—goal as well, england were 5—1 up at the break. this was being played at saint mary's southampton stadium. england were sloppy again in the second half, kosova scoring twice without reply although kane did have a penalty saved. the crowd were certainly entertained but england have much to improve the outstanding features and poor features are apparent to everybody, we do not need to get the video out and go through it again. poor individual mistakes, poor start to

the game, i like the way we show the composure to recover from that initial mistake and use of the ball throughout the first—half was excellent, right the way through the team. during the november international break there will be what the fa are calling a women's football weekend on the 16th to the 17th of that month. wsl fixtures will include a north london derby at the new 62,000—capacity tottenham hotspur stadium, liverpool also hosting everton in a merseyside derby and chelsea facing manchester united. the fa say that this will be another landmark moment in the growing popularity of the women's game. maisie summers newton has laid down a marker to british rival ellie simmonds at the world para swimming championships in london. she won her 200 metres individual medley heat this morning — finishing nearly five seconds ahead of simmonds in third. both qualify for tonight's final. meanwhile, alice tai remains on course for a 3rd gold medal in as many days — after winning her heat in the 100 metre butterfly event.

that's all the sport for now. i'll have more for you in the next hour. president trump has begun his search for his a new national security adviser, following his announcement that he had sacked john bolton over policy disagreements. mr bolton insists he resigned. his replacement is due to be announced next week. analysts believe the appointment may offer clues about a new direction for us foreign policy. let's cross live to new york and speak to cbs news' laura podesta. laura, is it any clearer weather this was a sacking or a resignation? at the moment, no. president trump cited policy disagreements withjohn bolton, his resignation letter, which was just two sentences long. john bolton oppose the widely criticised plan to meet with taliban leaders at camp david, which president trump said was called off

at the last minute. john bolton was also against the president's warning to north korea and his willingness to north korea and his willingness to engage with iran. the two men even disagreed with who decided on the departure, president trump said that he fired him and john bolton claimed he offered to resign. as you mention, we can expect the president to namea mention, we can expect the president to name a new national security adviser which would be his fourth next week. i don't know if that is a record, to have gone through three national security advisers at this stage in the presidency. who is the favourite? there is no list of candidates yet, but i do want to mention that we have learned through sources that there are a few more clues as to why donald trump may have fired john bolton. they say that the president was furious, because he believes thatjohn bolton lea ked because he believes thatjohn bolton leaked a story that donald trump wa nted leaked a story that donald trump wanted to explore the use of nuclear bombs to prevent hurricanes from

hitting the usa, i'm sure you have heard of this. whether or not it was john bolton who looked that story is unknown, but at the core of this sudden dismissal is still policy disputes, mainly with north korea and iran, and a source who is close tojohn bolton says that he believes his tenure was successful, because there were no bad deals made on his watch. back to your original question, it will most likely be someone who can really pledge their allegiance to donald trump, if those sources are correct and he really didn't want those kind of stories being leaked to the press. does finally, is it a bit of a guessing game at the moment as to whether this could signal a change of direction in terms of policy?|j direction in terms of policy?” think that is a really good question, and perhaps, perhaps it is someone who president trump really believes has his back in terms of what he wants to do regarding fallen policy. —— foreign policy in iran

and north korea, and unless we can find someone less hawkish thanjohn bolton and some are more willing to make a deal, which we know president trump always wants to do. thank you, laura in newark. —— in new york. the government is to allow international students studying at uk universities to stay in the country for two years after graduating. the announcement by the home office reverses a decision made by theresa may as home secretary in 2012 which forced foreign students to leave the country within four months of completing their degree. figures from the uk council for international student affairs show that last year more than 1150 thousand overseas students were studying here. china sends significantly more students than any other nation — with 106,000 students coming from the country, and according to the university body university uk, overseas students contribute £26 billion to the economy. the business secretary andrea leadsom says giving

overseas students more time to find jobs in the uk after graduating will help the uk's economy. the uk government's approach is to be open to the brightest and the best from around the world, so we already have record numbers of international students, and we hope to have a 30% increase by this policy of letting them stay for a couple of years afterwards, and for me as business secretary, my hope is that we will see a number of them contributing to some of the amazing technological innovations that we are taking forward in that global, outward—facing united kingdom, once we have left the eu. for many students, if they are head down, focusing on theirfinals, they often don't spend the time applying forjobs and going round shaking hands with new potential employers until after they graduate, and so it is important that they then have time in which to apply for roles, to wait for a programme to start, for example, if it is a graduate programme, so i think it is a good balance now,

giving them two years. and obviously, in the hope that at the end of that, if they are in roles which are important to the uk's economy, they'll be able to apply through the appropriate work route to be able to stay on even longer and continue to contribute. joining me now is nick hillman, director of the higher education policy institute — an organisation that promotes research into all aspects of higher education. thank you for your time today. what do you make of this change of policy? good afternoon, ithink do you make of this change of policy? good afternoon, i think this change of policy, to be honest, is fantastic. we have been waiting a decade for a more sensible approach towards international students. people across the world want to come and study in our world—class universities, but they have been put off by some of our rules being much tougher than our competitors in australia and new zealand and canada, and other countries which

also have great universities. we heard from the chairman of migration watch uk earlier he called this an unwise and retrograde step, which would lead to graduates from overseas perhaps doing any old job common a job which one would not call high quality based on their degree. how do you react to that?” profoundly disagree with it. it is true that ten or 15 years ago, when the rules were more lax, that did happen, but so many other immigration rules have been tightened up since and this changes for the well established universities that the home office trusts, so it is not fair to compare what happened 15 or 20 years ago with the new regime that the government has talked about today. i am very critical of the government when they do things that are a hindrance andi when they do things that are a hindrance and i have been critical of them for years on this policy, but today is cause to celebrate, because it is a much better and much

improved system they are promising. not every graduate will find a job that they ideally want straightaway, whether they are from the uk were from overseas, but with the overseas graduates, what guarantees do we have that they are going to be contributing to the economy to the uk economy in the way andrea leadsom has talked about and other organisations have talked about? well, they are exceptional people, people who are happy to travel halfway around the world to better themselves. first of all, we are not talking about average students. secondly, there is hard data to show that a huge number of them go either into sectors where there is a shortage of people, so nursing, teaching, places like that, or they go into the private sector and work for things like big it companies where, on average, they earn more than the british employees and the reason the employers are prepared to pay them more is they often bring

different and higher skill levels. we are talking about an exceptional group of people. thank you for your thoughts on that today. nick hillman, the director of the higher education policy institute. a couple of pieces of breaking news, we are hearing from a royal correspondent with regards to the judgment, the ruling by the court of session in edinburgh today, that the government's decision to suspend parliament was unlawful. you will remember boris johnson had parliament was unlawful. you will remember borisjohnson had to go to the queen and ask for that suspension of parliament to happen. well, buckingham palace has no on the record comment to gave on the court of sessions ruling, says our royal correspondent. a palace source is pointing out, however, that the queen acted and acts on the advice of her ministers. that is interesting, given what we heard from a number of people, but dominic grieve speaking to us earlier,

saying that if the government misled the queen, about the reasons for suspending parliament, then hit in his view, that would be remembered for borisjohnson to resign, that ruling from the court said that the suspension was unlawful, because in its opinion, the government had acted to stymy parliament. we have also had some reaction from the justice secretary, robert buckland, who has commented after reports that a downing street source had suggested scottish judges were politically biased. thejustice secretary has said, ourjudges are renowned around the world for their excellence and impartiality and i have total confidence in their independence in every case. this certainly matches what norman smith was telling us earlier that downing street was rolling back from any suggestion that there had been any criticism of the judges coming from downing street, so thejustice secretary saying, ourjudges are

renowned around the world for their excellence and impartiality and i have total confidence in their independence in every case. let's ta ke let's take a look at the weather forecast. we have the remnants of what was hurricane dorian moving close to the british isles at the moment. not a hurricane any more but it is bringing windy weather through today. most of us have seen cloudy and damp weather today. then a mixture of sunshine and showers. you can see the wind gusts we are expecting, particularly across northern areas, 110 mph. top temperature of 21 celsius. it will stay quite breezy. a mixture of clear spells and patchy cloud. the odd spot of drizzle. later in the night, thicker cloud will bring rain into northern ireland in western scotland. this is tomorrow's

weather, wet weather pushing across northern ireland into scotland and down into wales. brightening up to the north—west later on. another windy day, but not as windy as today. cool into the north—west. but in the south—east it will feel pretty humid. hello, this is bbc newsroom live with annita mcveigh. the headlines... scotland's highest civil court rules that the suspension of parliament is unlawful — because it was motivated by the "improper purpose of stymying parliament". the government will challenge the ruling in london's supreme court next week — but opposition mps argue they should be recalled immediately. mixed messages from labour as deputy leader tom watson calls for a referendum before an election, and says they should back remain, putting him at odds withjeremy corbyn.

the home office is overturning immigration controls introduced by theresa may, to allow international students to stay longer in the uk after finishing their degree 86 people attempt to cross the english channel in a single day — it's claimed people smugglers use threats about brexit to pressure migrants. record numbers of stores disappeared from britain's high streets in the first half of this year, according to a report from a leading accounting firm. coming up, a warning from car insurers on driverless cars — they say they'll cause more accidents without proper regulation. let's return to our top story — borisjohnson is facing demands for an immediate recall of parliament after scotland's highest civil court ruled that his decision to suspend parliament for five weeks was unlawful. a panel of three judges at the court of session in edinburgh found in favour of a cross—party group of mps and peers who were challenging

the prime minister's move. the first minister of scotland nicola sturgeon has given her reaction. well, this court judgment today is of enormous constitutional significance. but in some respects, the political implications of it should be quite straightforward. we have a court saying that the prorogation of parliament is unlawful and is null and void, to use the court's own language. that means, in my view, parliament should be recalled immediately and i would call on the prime minister to do the right thing and bring parliament back from its unlawful prorogation and allow that essential work of scrutiny to continue. what does this ruling say, do you think, about the prime minister's behaviour? well, i think the prime minister's behaviour has been outrageous and reckless and has shown a complete disregard for constitutional rules and norms. the fact this is the same prime minister who can't even bring himself to say that he will abide by the law of the land tells us all we need to know about his attitude

to the rule of law. but we have a court now saying that what he has done is unlawful. no doubt this judgment will go to the supreme court and we await to see the verdict of the supreme court. but in the meantime, i think a prime minister acting in accordance with the rule of law and acting in accordance with basic norms of democracy would recall parliament. it's notjust an academic point, there is much real and substantive work of scrutiny that parliament should be doing right now to hold this government to account. nicola sturgeon. the shadow brexit secretary, keir starmer said he was pleased with today'sjudgement, and called for parliament to be recalled immediately. this is an incredibly powerful judgment and normally judges don't go into this space, which is about the motivation of politicians for the decisions they make. so i can only assume the judges felt the evidence against borisjohnson

was overwhelming and therefore they found he acted unlawfully in shutting down parliament. i think most people across the country never really believed him anyway. but for a court to decide this and in such strong language is incredibly powerful. and you didn't expect it? no, ididn't. but i welcome it. and i think now what borisjohnson should do is urgently recall parliament. we should be back there this afternoon, or tomorrow, so we can debate this judgment and we can decide what to do next. he must urgently recall parliament now. my crash course in scots law this morning suggests if the court doesn't issue an order, then he doesn't have to reconvene parliament, he can wait until a furtherjudgment by the supreme court. is it yourjudgment though, politically as well as legally, that if he doesn't reconstitute parliament, he is actually in breach of the law? because they also said it was unlawful to provoke because they also said it was unlawful to prorogue under the circumstances.

they have said it is unlawful to prorogue and therefore i think he should do the right thing now, which is to reopen parliament, let us back to do ourjob and to decide what to do next. that is within his power and we must take the decisions when we are recalled and actually back doing the job we are sent to parliament to do. you have been a lawyer for many years before becoming a politician, some of the language of these law lords were effectively using in scotland said it was to frustrate parliament, they said they could see no other reason for the suspension of parliament. they said it was also an attempt to stop proper scrutiny by parliament. these are things you are arguing politically. how rare is it forjudges

to say that legally? this is really rare. judges are familiar with saying the government has acted unlawfully for legal reasons, perhaps misunderstood the law but to the use words such as frustrating parliament, to disbelieve the prime minister about the very reason he's shut down parliament, that is very, very powerful stuff. that was way beyond suggesting the prime minister is simply misinterpreted the law, that is one thing, come into saying you have deliberately tried to frustrate and close in parliament. and the reference in thejudgment documents is clear. they are seeing the documents they have seen point only one way and that means the public reason that borisjohnson has given for shutting down parliament. this is powerful stuff. let's get more now on the government's announcement that international students will be allowed to stay in the uk for two years after graduating — rather than the four month limit introduced by theresa may when she was home secretary. university leaders have welcomed the announcement, but, as we heard in the last half hour — the campaign group, migration watch, says it's

a "retrograde" step. ruth ohadiugha is from nigeria and studying for a masters in security, intelligence and diplomacy at the university of buckingham. shejoins me now from buckingham. why did you want to study in the uk in the first place? we did not have a lot of cover of the course in nigeria. the course is still new to nigeria, so i decided to study in the uk because the uk has more coverage and experienced lecturers and people who are in the field who will give me more knowledge that i seek. yes, so that is why i chose to do it in the uk. i am not quite sure how far you are through your course. what difference does this make to you, then use that instead of having four months after you graduate to stay in the uk, you can stay for up to two years? it gives me more time to two years? it gives me more time to actually make the right applications, go through the right processes and actually get what i wa nt to processes and actually get what i want to do. in the period of four

months, you do not have time to do all of that and get a job. but in a condition where i have two years, thatis condition where i have two years, that is a lot. i have the experience, i meet a lot of people, because in four months you don't get what you want, but with two years, you get to explore and you can work in places. it is really, really interesting. before this announcement, had you been thinking that you might then have to leave the uk pretty much immediately? actually, my options from the beginning before i even came to the uk have always been open. i have told myself that i wouldn't have to put so much pressure on myself if i don't get a placement in the uk, i could always go back to nigeria and search for a job placement there. i

plan is to makejob search for a job placement there. i plan is to make job applications here and then see what happens. if, at the end of the year, i don't get something, i will have to go back. we have had some organisations who have been campaigning for this assay we are delighted and overseas stu d e nts we are delighted and overseas students make a big contribution to the economy. what you say to critics of this move who do not think they should be extension? obviously, with policies like this, you have people who support them and people who are not supportive. i think the first timei not supportive. i think the first time i heard someone speak, he does not encourage people who come to study and don't want to go back. what i have to say to the person is, not everyone who comes to the uk to study actually wants to stay back

here. i think it is a thing of choice. when people who want to stay are seeking a job placement, they should be given the rights, some of them want to stay for ever, they just want to have an experience. i think it is the experience. they don't have to see it that way. people are coming here for the experience and that is basically it. thank you very much for taking the time to talk to us. thank you. the foreign secretary, dominic raab, has formally raised concerns about the number of dual—nationality britons detained in iran and the conditions in which they were being held. it comes as two british—australian women and an australian man have been incarcerated by the iranian authorities amid growing tensions between london and tehran. our correspondent, phil mercer, reports from sydney.

two british australian women are being detained in iran, along with an australian man. australian's department of foreign affairs and trade says it is providing consular assistance to the family members of these three individuals. australia has also updated its travel advice to its citizens travelling to iran. it is urging australians of the dangers of what it says are arbitrary arrest and detention. australia is also warning its citizens not to travel to certain parts of iran. as for the individuals involved, it is reported that a british australian women was detained with her australian boyfriend about ten weeks ago. we understand this women to be a blogger who was posting videos and photos of her trip around that part

of iran. now, there is speculation that this woman could be held in iran as part of a possible plan by the iranian authorities to force a prison exchange with australia. there is no confirmation from australian authorities on that. the second women involved in this, the second women involved in this, the second british australian national, is understood to be an academically has been at the university of cambridge in britain, and also teaching at an australian university. there are reports she is the mac has beenjailed university. there are reports she is the mac has been jailed for university. there are reports she is the mac has beenjailed for ten yea rs. we the mac has beenjailed for ten years. we do not know what sort of charges are offences she has alleged to have carried out. ten year sentences are often handed down for foreigners who have been suspected of spying. we do not australian authorities are leading efforts in

tehran for the release of these three individuals. a bit of reaction for you after the decision that the prorogation of parliament is unlawful and mps have cold for parliament to be recalled. we have the welsh labour mp who has said on twitter, it should be prime minister's questions. parliament has illegally prorogued. i have come to the chamber. no sign of the prime minister. if you go into his tweet, there is a reply from his colleague saying, iam there is a reply from his colleague saying, i am heading down, there is a reply from his colleague saying, iam heading down, too. another mp says, time we were all back instead of blocked, he says. someone calls it a point of posturing. i won't scroll through all of those replies but that is

kevin brennan saying he has come to the chamber, no sign of the prime minister. let's return to the story of hurricane dorian and the search of hurricane dorian and the search of those killed in the bahamas. the search for those killed by hurricane dorian in the bahamas continues — hundreds if not thousands of people are still missing. international teams with specially trained dogs are working to find the remains of those killed by the storm. at least fifty people are so far, known to have died. catherine karelli has more details. searching the ruins for the remains of those killed by hurricane dorian. this is mud, a shanty town in the abaco islands destroyed by the storm. life here replaced by the sickly smell of death. a team from canada with dogs specially trained to find bodies, scour through the rubble. we have not seen anything like a debris field like this, there are multiple areas that are impassable.

we have a difficult time because, of course, we have to find — make sure that our dogs are ok. there are multiple hazards here. it's from the air that the true scale of the challenge becomes apparent. more than 90% of buildings have been damaged or destroyed. some 70,000 residents across the bahamas are in urgent need of food and shelter. working from house to house, rescue teams undertake the grim task of removing the bodies of those who lost their lives two weeks ago, killed by the most powerful storm the region has ever endured. officials have denied accusations from residents of covering up the number of deaths. but the figure is likely to rise as hundreds, possibly thousands of people, are still missing. catherine corelli, bbc news. bbc news has discovered that the proportion of prosecutions

for homophobic hate crimes has fallen in england, wales and northern ireland over the past five years despite a big rise in the number of complainants coming forward. the national police chiefs' council says cases often don't make it to court because of a lack of witnesses and evidence. our lgbt correspondent ben hunte reports. lily is 17 and already she's a victim of homophobic hate. how often do these kind of homophobic incidents happen to you? i would say its two or three times a week, out in public. she has reported abuse to south yorkshire police. i feel like the police are not doing as much as they can to prosecute the people. it's a hate crime, it is illegal. in reality, people are contacting the police every single day about the police every single day about the physical and verbal abuse the experience just because of their

sexuality. a bbc investigation has found that crimes recorded by police have more than doubled in five yea rs. have more than doubled in five years. attacks have more than doubled in five yea rs. attacks have have more than doubled in five years. attacks have rocketed from 5800 in england, wales and northern ireland to more than 13 and a half thousand. five years ago, 20% of these hate crimes resulted in a prosecution. this has fallen to just 8%. in west yorkshire, crimes have risen fivefold in five years, with nearly 1000 recorded last year. we go out and promote and encourage people to report hate crime and hate incidents. south yorkshire police say they have investigated lowly‘s case but no suspects were identified. lily says she will not give into hate. —— south yorkshire police say they have investigated lily case.

insurers are warning that there is a risk of more road accidents, as we make the move towards driverless cars. the motor insurance research body is calling for regulations to make cars safe, as automated systems gradually take over from human drivers. our technology correspondent rory cellan—jones has this report. imagine you fell asleep in an automated car and the system brought it to a halt in the fast lane of a motorway. the insurers are warning that this kind of accident could become common, unless there are new safety regulations. the government says driverless cars could be on uk roads as early as 2021. but the car insurers say at first, they will be quite limited in what they can do, and they want new rules for how they should operate. during automation, it indicates green, and you can safely do other things. press the stalk at the end — the button on the end of the stalk... autonomous drive active. that's it. and then you let go. now, what this car really needs — and has — is a driver monitoring system, to actually watch what i'm up to. the car's got to be able to monitor whether you're paying attention,

and if you're not paying attention, the system must automatically try to wake you up. one rule would see motorists forced to watch a safety video before using an automated system the first time. driver monitoring would be an essential feature. and at first, automated cars will only be able to operate on motorways. automated drive not available. please take over. but they will also need be able to deal with situations where the motorist cannot take over the wheel. so what's happened is i disobeyed the car, i did not take over when there were roadworks, and it came to a halt automatically, parked us in the lay—by. but that has got to be mandated in these new autonomous systems, according to the motoring industry's insurance research body. vehicle manufacturers, at the moment, are advocating that it is fine for the vehicle to stop in lane. this we simply don't think that's safe. we say that vehicle manufacturers mustn't leave a vehicle in the middle of the lane. if the driver does not respond, pull the vehicle over, out of the running traffic.

cars are getting ever smarter, but the insurers warn that dangers lurk on the road to the driverless future. rory cellan—jones, bbc news. iggy pop is a true punk pioneer. forfive decades, he's been stage—diving topless into audiences. the sex pistols, the ramones and nirvana all cited him as a major influence. david bowie's song jean genie? that's about iggy — and together they wrote "lust for life" and "china girl". now at the age of 72, iggy has a new, more reflective album out, called free. our entertainment correspondent colin paterson, went to meet him. iggy pop, welcome to bbc breakfast. thank you.

iggy pop is a true punk pioneer. forfive decades, he's been stage—diving topless into audiences. the sex pistols, the ramones and nirvana all cited him a scream, you want me to scream? aaagh! all right? i think you just woke up britain there, iggy! all right! # she wants to be yourjames bond. # well, it's not for a price and it's not to be nice. # she wants to be yourjames bond... your new album is free, the single from it, james bond, with a twist — explain. well, it's, "she wants to be yourjames bond," it is a third—party commentator talking about a relationship shift! # save the day, baby. how big a bond fan are you? sean connery, he was one of the guys i would go to when i was down in life, to see their film and buck up. when a guy needs a boost, you don't need einstein. trainspotting, 1996 — what was your feeling, the first time you saw lust for life being used in that opening sequence? the scene he chose where ewan

mcgregor runs so convincingly through the streets really matched the song. i was really happy at the yea rs. # lust for life. and lust for life came from that very, very productive period you had. 1976 in berlin, you shared a flat with david bowie. he did the washing up? neither party. i'lljust say, not me. ok? david barry's death must‘ve came to a shock with you. when someone is gone, you think of the gifts. did you get to say goodbye? no, we spoke

in 2002 or 2003 about some chords we had and a conversation. we never connected those are finished those. it had been like one doesn't years. when i was taught i was interviewing you, there was a lot of talk in the office, would you be wearing a shirt? yes, i am wearing a shirt. i do wear shirts. how many days a year do wear shirts. how many days a year do you think you were a shirt? well, not a lot. i will carry one in the back seat of the car in case i need to go somewhere with no shirt, no shoes, no service. an emergency shirt. yes, an emergency shirt. i would say 100 days per year. if there was a bed in the room, we were going to try and get you to demonstrate how to stage—dive. idid 12 i did 12 gigs this year and i didn't

stage dive. has it gone? i did a lot of it. i worked on the front and i get touchy—feely, but i haven't been diving, no. i shouldn't. get touchy—feely, but i haven't been diving, no. ishouldn't. have get touchy—feely, but i haven't been diving, no. i shouldn't. have you done your last one? i'm not totally daft. # well, come on. let's return to our top story. borisjohnson is facing demands of an immediate recall of parliament after the scottish court ruled his decision to suspend it for five weeks was unlawful. a panel of threejudges in five weeks was unlawful. a panel of three judges in edinburgh five weeks was unlawful. a panel of threejudges in edinburgh found in favour of the group of mps and peers who were challenging the move. the defence secretary was asked about the move a short while ago. it was ruled it was unlawful to prorogue parliament. i wanted to get your reaction to that and do you now

believe they should reconvene parliament? i saw the ruling this morning. the government has said it will appeal to the supreme court. i am not going to comment on and are legislative process. then wallace saying the government won't be doing until the supreme court case. much more on that coming up with the news at one, first good afternoon. to exit tropical weather systems have taken control of our weather for weather systems have taken control of our weatherfor much weather systems have taken control of our weather for much of this week. today, we are dealing with the re m na nts of week. today, we are dealing with the remnants of what was hurricane dorian. it is making for a windy day. certainly not a hurricane any more. this frontal system bringing patchy rain in the south. behind me i the remnants of tropical storm gabrielle. for the rest of this afternoon, a mixture of sunny spells

and showers. the showers are most widespread across scotland. brisk winds. those are the gas you can expect through the rest of today. —— make the gusts. temperature wise, highs of 21 celsius. this evening and tonight, most areas will be dry. we will see some clear spells here and there. it is going to turn quite cloudy, murky and drizzly for wales, the south—west of england. that next weather maker i showed you, rain into west of scotland. here we have the remnants of what was a tropical storm gabrielle, bringing outbreaks of rain in association with these weather fronts. tucked of rain in association with these weatherfronts. tucked in between the front, remember this area has come from the tropics. it is going to feel rather humid briefly. through tomorrow, many of us are crossing england and wales and start off with spells of sunshine. outbreaks of rain pushing across scotla nd outbreaks of rain pushing across scotland and northern ireland in two

parts of wales and northern england in the afternoon. it is brighten up across the north—west. not quite as windy tomorrow but windy. the evidence of that humid air, you can see from the temperatures come up to 23 celsius in the south—east, cooler towards the north. for most, looking fine with lots of sunshine. showery rain affecting western scotland and that pressure feel. as we head into the weekend, high pressure is going to dominate for most of us. that means plenty of dry weather. temperatures will start to climb as well. we will see some outbreaks of rain, particularly across the north of scotland. quite windy here as well. temperatures climbing perhaps up well. temperatures climbing perhaps up to 25 celsius.

the suspension of parliament is ruled unlawful by scotland's highest civil court. there are calls for mps to be recalled to westminster immediately. caught every moment that parliament remains preferred, the british government are breaking the law so we as politicians are calling for parliament to be recalled so that we can get on scrutinising what this government is up to in relation to brexit. the judges ruled that the prime minister's decision to suspend parliament had been motivated by what they called "the improper purpose of stymying it". the judgement goes to the uk supreme court next week. we'll have the latest from westminster and brussels. also this lunchtime: labour's deputy leader tom watson calls for the party to prioritise