this is bbc news. i'm clive myrie. the headlines at 23:00: the government has said that its timetable for leaving the eu will not be changed by its defeat in the supreme court — ministers are expected to introduce legislation to parliament on thursday this judgment does not change the fact that the uk will be leaving the european union, and it's ourjob to deliver on the instruction the people of the uk have given us. the devolved administrations will not be consulted over the brexit process — nicola sturgeon has said the views of the scottish people are being ignored. with every day that passes right now, it is becoming clear that scotland's voice cannot and is not able to be heard within the uk on this question. president trump has angered environmentalists and native americans by signing orders intended to revive two controversial oil pipeline projects. shares in bt have seen a dramatic fall in value after an accounting scandal at the company's italian division. coming up on newsnight, the losers

in the supreme court may end up being the winners because brexit needs to be on time. we will be hearing from alex salmond. good evening and welcome to bbc news. by the end of this week, a bill will be laid before parliament to start the process of leaving the european union. it follows a ruling by the supreme court, confirming that ministers are not allowed to trigger the process without parliamentary approval. despite losing the case, ministers insist their brexit timetable is intact and they expect both houses of parliament to give their approval before the end of march, as our political editor

laura kuenssberg reports. a hot ticket, to seejudges rule. is it the prime minister, or parliament that's in charge? theresa may wanted to avoid asking mps for permission to start leaving the eu. but businesswoman gina miller fought and fought and fought again. arguing the government simply does not have the power to do it alone. there's no precedent, so can our departure start? so—called article 50, without parliament saying yes? today, by a majority of eight to three, the supreme court rules that the government cannot trigger article 50 without an act of parliament authorising it to do so. the referendum is of great political significance. but the act of parliament which established it

did not say what should happen as a result. so, any change in the law, to give effect to the referendum, must be made in the only way permitted by the uk constitution, namely, by an act of parliament. to proceed otherwise, would be a breach of settled constitutional principles stretching back many centuries. and there are consequences from that clear instruction. ministers have no choice, mps must have a say. of course the government is disappointed with the outcome but we have the good fortune to live in a country where everyone, every individual, every organisation, even government, is subject to the rule of law. so, the government will comply with the judgment of the court. the challenger, well—financed, but outsiders won the day. no prime minister, no government can expect to be una nswerable or unchallenged.

parliament alone is sovereign. the bill passed unopposed so they can be no going back. the point of no return was passed onjune 23rd last year. labour won't allow its mps to stop the bill but will try to make changes. we're very clear, we're going to hold them to account. we're going to hold them to account to protectjobs. we're going to hold them to account to make sure that british industry does have market interest. and we're not going to allow ourselves to become some sort of offshore tax haven. that's not what people voted for. but while mps will have more power,

thejudges' decision not to insist holyrood has a formal say, could strain further the union between scotland and the rest of the uk. the decision is looming for scotland. are we prepared to allow our futures to be dictated by a westminster government that's going down a path that i think the majority of people in scotland do not want to go down, or are we going to take our future into our own hands? for all its potential, this illegal tangled personal change everything. while they lost the case, the government has not lost control of the arc and is. at least not yet. just as theresa may's motorcade swept past the court, she's been able to brush aside some of the arguments. one senior tory told me — we are on our way. laura kuenssberg bbc news, westminster. so, the supreme court has ruled that

the government does not have to consult any of the devolved administrations before launching the brexit process. the snp is proposing dozens of amendments to the forthcoming parliamentary bill. labour is also warning that it will try to amend the bill, as our deputy political editor john pienaar reports. thejudgment‘s in, now it's up to the politicians. the news went around the world in seconds, a story ministers hoped never to hear told, not in any language. but the government's had time to get ready, so could parliament get in theresa may's way? here's what lies on the road ahead. the government says legislation, paving the way for brexit, will be tabled within days. that will be voted on by both houses, commons and lords. theresa may intends article 50 will be triggered by the end of march and once triggered, britain will have two years to leave the eu. one shadow minister's ready to defy labour orders and vote against brexit,

though it might end her career. my constituents voted to remain in the european union, i am leaning towards voting against article 50 because i'm here to represent their views and if i have to resign my shadow ministerial position because of the stance i take, it will be unfortunate. many labour mps accept stopping brexit is not an option and worry their party could concede too much. we cannot be a party that rubber stamps a hard brexit. look, i accept we're leaving the european union and i'm minded to vote for article 50 bill to be triggered, but i am not going to give this government a blank cheque on the contents of a deal. i am not going to give theresa may the ability to go and run a coach and horses through the living standards of middle and lower income families in my constituency. i won't do it. around westminster, they're asking who'll work with him. the snp has proposed around 50 amendments or suggested changes to the bill starting brexit, and wants help. what we really need is to be working together with as many people as possible to hold this government to account and i think

we really need labour to get their act together a bit. opposition parties are split and labour, out of step with so many of its brexit—supporting voters, can't agree on tactics or policy and that's good news for theresa may. the bill to start britain's eu divorce proceedings will pass and comfortably. in the commons, mps will try to force more votes before the divorce deal is settled and in the lords, there'll be more resistance to brexit. but many peers are nervous about defying the verdict of the eu referendum. would it not be foolish in the extreme if this house placed itself, as an unelected body, in confrontation with the bulk of the british people? and after fierce attacks on the courts in the past, an appeal from the church for calm to help reunify the country when the eu deal is done. the use of language, which may occasionally sound threatening, is very unhelpful if, at the end of the two year period, we are going to end up with a country that is able to go

forward in a reconciled and prosperous and flourishing way. for keen brexiteers today, so far so good. you're looking a little bit triumphant right now? well, i'm happy that we didn't end up with a bogged down deal over the devolved administrations. instead of which a simple process, a simple bill, going through both houses. theresa may will be on time triggering article 50, she's made it clear. which means, basically, the effort to try and stop us leaving has failed. so another long day on the road to brexit. the bill, approving the exit talks, comes out on thursday, but this is just the beginning. the real political slog towards an eu deal has yet to begin. john pienaar, bbc news, westminster. president trump has signed more executive orders today, including one to relaunch controversial oil pipeline projects in the united states. one of the projects had been blocked by president obama on environmental grounds. but mr trump said he was in favour because they would create manyjobs,

including in america's steel industry. our north america editor jon sopel has more details. i am, to a large extent, an environmentalist, i believe in it. but it's out of control. the key word there seems to be "but", as another day brings another set of executive actions that aren't exactly music to the ears of the green lobby. from now on, we're going to start making pipeline in the united states. we build it in the united states. we build the pipelines. we want to build the pipe. we're going to put a lot of workers, a lot of steelworkers back to work. and from former vice—presidential candidate, sarah palin, this tweet, "drill baby, drill." these two pipelines will each stretch over 1,000 miles, one going from canada, in the north, down to the gulf coast in the south. the other would stretch across four states to illinois and will create thousands ofjobs along the way and be a major boom for the oil industry.

when barack obama was president there was a huge amount of prevarication and hand—wringing over what to do about the keystone xl pipeline, the president then trying to balance his green credentials with his desire to providejobs. for donald trump, in his second day in office, no such qualms. for him, everything is about putting americans back to work. but criticism has been swift. president trump's decision today to green light these dirty oil pipelines proves one, that over the next four years he will side with the oil and gas industry over public health, the environment and every day americans. and the move is certain to upset native americans whose opposition to the dakota pipeline was strenuous and, ultimately, successful last yea r. they object to it, saying it will contaminate water supplies and disturb ancient burial grounds. and though this executive action has been signed,

this is probably going to end up in the courts and so, in the short—term, this move is likely to create more jobs for lawyers than construction workers. jon sopel, bbc news, washington. the head of bt in europe, corrado sciolla, is to resign, following an accounting scandal at the company's italian division. shares in the company have plunged in value, after news that it's setting aside £530 million to cover losses, as a result of improper practices. this year's oscar nominations are the most racially diverse for several years, with 7 of the 20 candidates in the acting categories from ethnic minority backgrounds. the british stars, dev patel and naomie harris, are among them. leading the way with 14 nominations, equalling the record for a single film, is the critically—acclaimed musical la la land, as our arts editor will gompertz reports. # someone in the crowd could be the one you need to know #. there's nothing hollywood

likes more than a film that puts it centre stage. so no great surprise la la land, the musical about two wannabes making their way in tinseltown, has 14 nominations, including damien chazelle for best director and ryan gosling and emma stone in the best actor and best actress categories. # look into somebody‘s eyes # it will get a run for its money from moonlight, barryjenkins' coming—of—age drama, which gets eight nominations and sees mahershala ali getting a nod as best supporting actor and a crack—addled naomie harris one for best supporting actress. some boys chased him and they cut, he's scared more than anything. i'm trying to explain it to you the best way i know how. she will be up against viola davis, who puts in a powerful performance in fences, directed by and starring denzel washington, who's nominated in the best actor category. i've got a life, too. who the hell is private darce? along with american—british actor andrew garfield, as the heroic conscientious objector

in mel gibson's hacksaw ridge. well, that's some of the runners and riders. kate muir, you're the times film critic. pick us some winners, starting with best picture? has to be la la land, it's completely in a league of its own. it's glorious, it's romantic, it's dancing on air, but there's also the cinematic craft there. ok, best actor? has to be, i think, casey affleck in manchester by the sea. it's a real nuanced performance. he's like an unexploded bomb. so not andrew garfield? no, hacksaw ridge is not our thing, i don't think. ok, best actress? i would really like to see natalie portman win this forjackie. i think it's a cool, elegant, clever performance. meryl streep‘s not going to get it, then? absolutely not. ok, best supporting actor? i would like to see mahershala ali win this for moonlight. he's playing a drugs kingpin, but against all odds, he's tender, he's fatherly. it's quite a surprise. best supporting actress?

i would like naomie harris to win this for britain, for moonlight. she's usually miss moneypenny, here she is playing a crack—addicted mother. it's a great surprise. i think it will be viola davis. and then, finally, best director? damien chazelle really, really deserves this for pulling all the stops out on la la land. last year's awards were dominated by the oscars so white campaign. the 2017 shortlist is more diverse, but we can still expect politically charged speeches with the name donald trump likely to crop up. will gompertz, bbc news. i put money on it. that's a summary of the news, newsday is coming up at midnight — now on bbc news it's time for newsnight. back in november, when the court said parliament should get a vote