HOLYROOD'S pro-independence campers have officially labelled themselves "the sovereign and indigenous peoples of Scotland" as they called for the UN to monitor their courtroom fight against eviction.

A group of around 20 of the activists and their supporters arrived at the Court of Session in Edinburgh this morning for their first legal confrontation with Scottish Parliament authorities, which have initiated legal action in a bid to remove the settlement of around five tents, two caravans and a trailer.

The Herald: The Court of Session in Edinburgh

Lord Glennie, who presided over this morning's hearing, told David Patterson, the camp representative speaking for the group, that they should prepare to provide a list of names and addresses of all of the "sovereign and indigenous peoples of Scotland", the name under which the campers are responding to the action, by the time of a future court appearance on March 9.

Mr Patterson, after being asked by the judge whether whether the group had considered applying for legal aid, replied that they had hundreds of supporters and he would have to ask them for their views on the matter. He added: "I will need to speak to the rest of the clan."

The campers have previously pledged to represent themselves against the parliament, with has hired Brodies LLP, the country's largest legal firm, to fight its corner.

Mr Patterson told Lord Glennie: "We would like to invite the United Nations to the court", with the group believing that Scottish judges may not give them a fair hearing because they are appointed by the government and are supposedly biased in favour of the state.

Camp supporters packed the public gallery sporting pro-independence regalia, including 'Stronger for Scotland' SNP badges and Yes Scotland merchandise which was produced ahead of 2014's independence referendum.

One wore a Scottish Resistance t-shirt, representing the group that launched a three-person protest outside the Tunnocks factory in Uddingston last week over the firm's decision to remove the lion rampant from its logo and market its flagship product as the 'Great British Teacake'.

They were reprimanded after bursting into applause after Lord Glennie said: "I drive past every morning and I don't see any violence or vandalism" while seeking to clarify on what grounds the parliament wanted the camp dismantled. Following the outburst, the judge said: "I did not make that comment in order to encourage people to participate in proceedings."

The campers raised the prospect of having a jury decide the case, which would be highly unusual given that it is a civil rather than criminal matter. Lord Glennie told Mr Patterson the group should come up with some justification should they wish to push ahead with the call.

The Herald: The Indy Camp at Holyrood

In legal documents submitted to the court, lawyers acting for the parliament's corporate body outlined the reasons why the group should be evicted. One paragraph in the document read: "The members of that group have publicly stated that they intend to maintain their camp on the Parliament Campus until Scotland declares itself an independent state. It is uncertain whether (and if so when) that event will ever occur. As matters stand therefore, the stated intention of the members of the camp must be taken to evince the intention to occupy the parliament campus indefinitely."

Holyrood bosses also believe that the campers are denying others use of the land while calling into question the political impartiality of its estate.

The activists mainly remained tight-lipped as they left the court, saying they intended to speak to the Independence Live online broadcast channel rather than the traditional media.

However, they appeared in high spirits, with one saying: "We're going to come back and we're going to win".The Herald: The Holyrood camp last week

The Court granted a motion which allows a period of four weeks for written arguments to be revised with the March 9 hearing to determine further procedure. This will be a precursor to a further hearing, at a later date, where the substantive arguments of the case will be heard.

A Parliament spokesman said: "We recognise the importance of peaceful protests in a democratic society. However by seeking to occupy this land on a long term basis and refusing our request to vacate, we had no alternative but to commence legal proceedings.

"The Parliament makes its land available for the use and enjoyment of everyone equally, and we cannot permit its exclusive use by one particular group. We welcome the progress made today towards a resolution of the issue."