Professor John Curtice has aid that Brexit has "undermined the legitemacy" of the union north of the border and paved the way for a second independence referendum. 

The polling expert, from the University of Strathclyde, has rejected suggestions that the Holyrood election did not give the SNP a mandate to call for a new breakaway 

Prof Curtice was responding to answers given by Tory MSP Craig Hoy during the BBC's Debate Night programme, where he suggested there should be no independence referedum "for the next five years".   

The professor responded: “The problem that your side of the argument has is you can reasonably argue ‘well it was only seven years ago that we had the last referendum’.

"The trouble is that Brexit happened in that interim. It’s perfectly clear from the polling evidence, the polling evidence which has now been confirmed by the result last Thursday (the Holyrood election) that the pursuit of Brexit has undermined support for the Union.

READ MORE: Tom Gordon — Tory response to the SNP win is laughably bad

“Indeed, it’s fundamentally changed the choice that Scotland now faces. Scotland now faces a choice between does it want to be part of a relatively small internal market, but one that engages in fiscal transfers? Or does it want to be part of a bigger single market that so far has only engaged in relatively small amounts of fiscal transfers?"

He added: “That’s a very, very different strategic choice than the one that was put before voters in 2014 and I think having pursued Brexit as a political party, you do have to accept the consequences of your actions. And the consequence of your actions has been to undermine the legitimacy of the Union north of the Border.”

READ MORE: Green MSP Alison Johnstone set to be elected Holyrood's new Presiding Officer

Later in the programme, Mr Hoy praised Douglas Ross for seeking to portray the Scottish Conservatives as a“a positive party of government in Scotland – but one that works in tandem with the UK Government.

"For example on cross-border infrastructure projects and investment straight from Westminster into our communities”.

Prof Curtice, however, raised questions about the effectiveness of UK-wide initiaatives directed by Westminster, noting that the EU had previously branded infrastructure projects across the UK, but that it was not enough to stop Brexit.

“The EU tried to persuade us of its merits and its value through that strategy,” he said. “So why do you now think signs that say ‘funded by the UK Government’ will be any more effective in persuading people in Scotland of the legitimacy of the current constitutional arrangement than those of the EU?”

The professor continued: “I think what you’re missing in your answer is that yes sure, people will welcome spending on infrastructure. But the argument up here is not about how much money is spent, it’s about who should decide how the money is spent.

“And by pursuing something which seems to tread on the existing toes of the devolution settlement, I would respectfully suggest to you that you are at risk of undermining your position and the perceived legitimacy of the UK, rather than strengthening it.”