It was where Humza Yousaf was sworn in as First Minister after an SNP leadership contest in which he vowed to fight Westminster vetoes.

This week Court 1 at the Court of Session was where he made good on that promise, as his Government sought to overturn Scottish Secretary Alister Jack’s block on Holyrood's Gender Recognition Reform Bill.

“If we cave in the first time they use a Section 35 Order, they will veto legislation after legislation time and time again,” the First Minister thundered in March.

READ MORE: Court battle over Holyrood gender reform ends day early

It was a message repeated, in more restrained terms, by his chief law officer, the Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain KC.

Mr Jack was still the villain. 

His making of an order under Section 35 of the 1998 Scotland Act was unlawful and irrational and his reasons inadequate, she said. It was also, she implied, a con. 

Although Mr Jack claimed to be troubled about possible adverse effects on reserved equality law, that was actually cover for a “policy disagreement”.

If he prevailed, “that would be tantamount to the Scottish Parliament being able to legislate only insofar as the UK executive consented,” she said, echoing the FM.

With the Bill of a democratically elected parliament at stake, and Section 35 untested in court, the first use of this power should be subject to intense review, she said.  

She also cast doubt on some of Mr Jack’s stated rationale for the order,  arguing his worries over possible problems were over-blown and unsupported by evidence.

Day two saw the UK Government’s David Johnston KC try to bulldoze her efforts.

The order was not sinister or unconstitutional but an integral part of devolution, he said.

Mr Jack may not have considered all the evidence MSPs did, but he’d considered enough and given numerous reasons for the order.

As for lack of evidence, the Scottish Secretary was concerned about things that might happen in future, so he had to use logic, not spreadsheets.

The Lord Advocate’s arguments were “misdirected” and whiffed of “red herring”.

READ MORE: Lord Advocate using 'red herring' in gender reform case, court hears

In what may prove decisive, Mr Johnston tried to set the bar for success as low as possible. Ms Bain argued that if Mr Jack’s reasons failed to convince judge Lady Haldane and fell below a “critical mass”, she should overturn the order.

But Mr Johnston said that if just one survived, the order did too. In fact, even if they all fell down it should survive, as Mr Jack had made the effort. 

The law said he had to give reasons, not that they should all be zingers.

Lady Haldane said it had been a unique and challenging case, a polite way of saying we shouldn’t expect her decision too soon.