SO, the judges have spoken: it is for MPs, not ministers, to change the UK constitution; Article 50, the mechanism by which negotiations to take the country out of the European Union will begin must be triggered by an act of parliament rather than the whim of the Government.

All those who value the sovereignty of Parliament – and certainly those who voted in June’s referendum to Remain – will no doubt welcome this ruling. Those who value the independence of the judiciary may also feel that an important point has been made, particularly following the shameful and dangerous headlines in some right-wing newspapers around the Supreme Court judges being “enemies of the people”.

Prime Minister Theresa May hinted in her keynote Brexit speech last week that she knew the appeal her Government lodged in the Supreme Court following the High Court defeat in November had been lost. She said as much when she announced that MPs would be given a vote on the final Brexit deal.

But yesterday’s ruling was bigger and more far-reaching than this single point, of course. And Mrs May probably heaved a sigh of relief when the judgement came through, with particular reference to two key issues.

Firstly, the judges made it clear that from here on in it is for politicians rather than the courts to decide how to proceed. And they did not specify exactly what sort of legislation should be introduced in order to invoke Article 50.

With this in mind, many expect the Government to introduce a short Bill in the House of Commons soon - possibly even over the next couple of days - to get the ball rolling. Whatever form it takes, Mrs May and her ministers will no doubt want to leave as little wriggle room as possible for her opponents to amend the legislation.

Secondly, the judgement was extremely important for Scotland - and on this one Mrs May won hands down. Scotland’s Lord Advocate James Wolffe had argued that the so-called Sewel Convention – part of the Scotland Act 2016 - meant the Government in London should normally consult Holyrood before passing laws that affect areas devolved to it and thus Holyrood as well as Westminster should be given a say on Article 50. “Normally” turned out to be the operative word, however, as the judges ruled that this is a convention rather than a legally binding obligation. In other words the UK Government can simply plough ahead with Brexit whether the Scottish Government – and indeed the Scottish people, who voted by 62 per cent to remain in the EU - like it or not.

This part of the judgement was also particularly relevant to Northern Ireland, which also voted to remain in the EU and now finds itself in a uniquely precarious situation following the Brexit vote.

So, where does that leave us now? First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who has previously laid down plans for Scotland to remain a member of the European single market even if the rest of the UK leaves it, responded by reiterating her promise to hold a vote in Holyrood on the triggering of Article 50 regardless of the Supreme Court judgement; of course, Mrs May is now under no obligation to pay the result of this any heed whatsoever.

Ms Sturgeon also talked yesterday of Scotland’s voice “simply not being heard” and described the Prime Minister’s claim that Scotland is an equal partner in the Union as “empty rhetoric”. In light of Mrs May’s speech last week where she made it clear her direction of travel was a “hard” Brexit, it is hard to argue with these contentions. The Prime Minister did, after all, promise to treat the devolved administrations as equal partners in the negotiations. It is surely time for her to honour that vow.

If nothing else, yesterday’s judgement at least allows for action rather than simply more words and the SNP has indicated that it will table some 50 amendments to the Bill, including a proposal that the UK should stay in the EU under a “revised” membership if MPs reject the final deal with Brussels. In light of this, both the SNP and Labour have urged the Government to publish a White Paper outlining its plans in detail.

In the past few months UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been less than clear on his attitude towards Brexit. Following yesterday’s judgement Mr Corbyn said his party would not “frustrate the process for invoking Article 50” but would table amendments around trade. It will be interesting to see whether his support will stretch to amendments that go further and would potentially keep Scotland – or indeed the UK - in the single market.

It will take time to fully understand the implications of yesterday’s Supreme Court’s judgement. It is clear that new precedents around how the UK should be governed in future have been set, particularly around the primacy of Parliament. The Parliament in question, however, is Westminster. And where that leaves Scotland remains to be seen.