The fourth and final day of the landmark legal battle over Brexit at the Supreme Court in London has drawn to a close with judgement reserved until the new year.
Eleven justices gathered today to hear further argument from Scotland's most senior law officer.
Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC began his submissions on Wednesday when he told the packed London court that Scotland is entitled to "a voice".
The panel of justices, headed by the court's president Lord Neuberger, will also hear argument today on behalf of the Welsh government.
Brexit will 'render insensible' some British law, Supreme Court told
Theresa May's 'red, white and blue' Brexit - is she talking gibberish?
Day Two: Northern Ireland Attorney General John Larkin speaks to the court
Graphic: Who's who in the Supreme Court
Your key questions about the Brexit Supreme Court case answered
The Supreme Court justices heard the claim from a top lawyer representing the Welsh government.
Richard Gordon QC told the packed London court that what the Government was seeking to do was use the prerogative power "to drive through the most major constitutional change in our system at least since 1972".
That constitutional change was, he said, of a "seismic nature".
Mr Gordon, presenting arguments on behalf of Mick Antoniw, the Counsel General for Wales, submitted that having a "treaty-making power" did not mean there was a power to "dispense with laws, or subvert statutory schemes or crucify human rights".
He told the justices: "We say use of the prerogative will dispense with law. If we are right about that, we win and the government loses."
Mr Gordon, describing "what at heart these appeals are really about", told the court: "They are really about the proper distribution of power between Parliament and the executive in our society."
The Brexit vote had "split the UK into four parts", he said, describing it as almost "the most divisive political event that has happened over the last several decades".
In his opening remarks Mr Gordon told the justices: "On behalf of the Counsel General for Wales, who sits next to me, I want to make it clear that the position of the Welsh Government and the Counsel General is that the result of the referendum to leave the EU should be respected."
He added: "Wales is not here because it wants either to stop or to stall Brexit, or the implementation of Brexit. It is here precisely because the constitutional issues at stake go far beyond Brexit."
He argued that the case presented to the court by the British government was "flawed".
Day Two: Northern Ireland Attorney General John Larkin speaks to the court
Earlier, Scotland's most senior law officer, Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC, argued that an Act of Parliament was required to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to start the two-year process of withdrawing from the EU.
And he said the Scottish Parliament was also entitled to a voice on the issue, which involved the serious loss of EU rights for Scottish people.
Manjit Gill QC, appearing for parents and children who are not UK citizens but European Economic Area (EEA) nationals, said it is important that Parliament, not Government ministers using the royal prerogative, should be involved in triggering Brexit.
Without safeguards, he said, EEA nationals could be told "to pack your bags and go" when the UK withdraws from Europe.
Mr Gill suggested nobody had thought at the time of drafting the EU Referendum Act 2015 which paved the way for the June referendum whether or not the prerogative would be appropriate for notifying Article 50.
He said: "The reason for that may be this. Nobody ever thought there was going to be a Leave vote."
Arguing that the prerogative should not be used, he said: "If the rule of law is to mean anything, even sovereigns must be constrained by it."
Who's who in the Supreme Court
Helen Mountfield QC, appearing for the crowdfunded "People's Challenge" to the Government's Brexit strategy, urged the judges to uphold the High Court ruling.
Ms Mountfield said the people she represented "consider EU citizenship a fundamental part of their identity".
If they were to be deprived of the domestic law rights they enjoyed under EU law that should be done "by elected representatives in Parliament", she said.
That was important "in a democratic society which is based on the separation of powers (between the Government and Parliament) and the rule of law".
Everything you need to know about the Brexit case at the #SupremeCourt
