A FORMER Scottish Government adviser has claimed Nicola Sturgeon’s Supreme Court fight over a second referendum is a costly sham, as she has known for years that it’s doomed.

Alex Bell said the case was “a waste of time and money” and the First Minister was told as much after the SNP came to power in 2007. 

He said the administration received legal advice that it would be unlawful for Holyrood to try to stage an independence vote without Westminster’s consent.

He suggested Ms Sturgeon was knowingly squandering taxpayers’ money on “a piece of theatre designed to disguise how the SNP has failed nationalists”.

Preparing the case has already cost £30,000 and the final bill could exceed £100,000.

Mr Bell also predicted that Ms Sturgeon’s bid to have the Supreme Court rule on the issue would see her generation of SNP heavyweights “end in ignominy”.

However the issue of Holyrood's competence to stage Indyref2 is disputed by lawyers, and only the Supreme Court can give a definitive answer.

A former special adviser to First Minister Alex Salmond, Mr Bell makes the claims in a column for the Sunday Times.

Under the 1998 Scotland Act that established devolution, the Scottish Parliament is not allowed to legislate on matters reserved to Westminster, including the Union.

The Scottish Government has published two draft bills for holding Indyref2 unilaterally, but never introduced them into parliament because its senior law officer, the Lord Advocate, Dorothy Bain QC, believes they may be beyond Holyrood’s powers.

Faced with Ms Bain’s effective veto on the legislation, Ms Sturgeon asked her in June to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for a definitive ruling on the issue.

Ms Bain agreed, and the Court is now set to consider the case on October 11 and 12.

If the justices decide that Holyrood can stage Indyref2 under its existing powers, then Ms Sturgeon has said a vote will be held on October 19 next year.

But if the Court rules Westminster’s consent is essential, the First Minister has said she will fight the next general election as a “de facto referendum” on independence.

The SNP argues that simply asking people about independence does not relate to the Union, but is merely an advisory exercise that would have no direct legal effect.

Most legal experts believe the Court will go against Ms Sturgeon and this view.

Both Tory hopefuls vying to be PM have said they would block a second referendum.

In his Sunday Times column, Mr Bell said : “Since 2007 Nicola Sturgeon has known the law. “It is Westminster’s call. Pursuing the matter after 15 years in office is a piece of theatre designed to disguise how the SNP has failed nationalists.”

Although Mr Salmond and Ms Sturgeon, his then deputy FM, promised a referendum bill in the 2007-11 parliament, one was never published.

Mr Salmond ultimately said he had dropped the idea because his minority administration would be outvoted by the Unionist parties at Holyrood.

However Mr Bell said there was more to it than that, and a Bill was never formally introduced because “advice from officials, including informal legal advice, was that Holyrood’s lawyers would reject the bill on the ground that it went beyond the competence of the parliament”.

He went on: "Salmond and Sturgeon knew of this, but it's not clear whether the cabinet did. Nobody told the party. Loyalists put the delay of the referendum bill down to  Salmond's cunning - a misreading that neither the party nor its opponents challenged.

"This is Salmond was so keen on devo max in 2010. He concluded that incremental improvement was the only route to more powers.

He also said that Scottish Government officials believed a Bill would still be unlawful after the SNP won a majority in the 2011 Holyrood election, and the deadlock was only broken by the then Tory PM David Cameron agreeing to a referendum.

Mr Bell wrote: “Put simply, the 2014 vote happened because the various players followed the law. The law has not changed since, and neither has the advice. 

“The Lord Advocate has published her opinion that legislation permitting a lawful referendum requires Westminster consent.

"The First Minister has taken a peculiarly British route in disregarding the most senior Scottish legal advice on the matter and going to the Supreme Court in London for satisfaction. However, she does not expect the law to satisfy her, but the spectacle."

He forecast the Court would say no to Ms Sturgeon, but she could still claim to have done her best "and the SNP's Indy vehicle will splutter on".

The First Minister could also use the moment to quit politics, he said.

"That is not to say that independence will die, or that the urgent need to govern Scotland intelligently will diminish.

"It just means that the Salmond, Sturgeon and Swinney era will end in ignominy. They made promises to the party they knew they could not keep. 

"The present political myth is that the Tories ignore Scotland and Labour betrayed us. In time, the SNP leadership will join the list of disappointments."

The Scottish Government said: “As the first minister made clear in her statement to parliament on June 28, the lawfulness of a referendum must be established as a matter of fact, not just opinion, and that is why the issue has now been referred to the UK Supreme Court, in line with the democratic mandate for an independence referendum.”

It was also reported today that Ms Sturgeon asked Ms Bain to make the reference just two days after being forced to release some legal advice on Indyref2 under freedom of information.

The advice conspicuously failed to say if Holyrood had the power to hold Indyref2.

Scotland on Sunday said Ms Sturgeon met Ms Bain on June 9 to discuss a reference to the Supreme Court, a request Ms Bain later agreed to take forward, asking the Court to consider the question as a “devolution issue” because of the public interest involved.

Tory MSP Donald Cameron said: “Scots have made it consistently clear that they do not want the SNP to pursue another divisive referendum next year.

“We know that the SNP Government’s own Lord Advocate had significant doubts over their legal case for a referendum and now that view has been shared by a former senior adviser.

“The fact that someone who was involved in negotiating the 2014 referendum has poured scorn on Nicola Sturgeon’s case should strike a chord with her.

“She should stop playing these political games and instead fully focus on the real priorities of Scots, such as supporting people through the cost-of-living crisis and tackling the growing backlog in our NHS.”