Stephen Noon: Court likely to rule against Scottish Government

However, he added that even if the justices did rule in the Scottish Government's favour he thought there should be pause to the independence vote.

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has said she plans to hold a second independence referendum on October 19 next year.

The Supreme Court will rule tomorrow morning if Holyrood has the powers to hold a vote on independence without the UK Government agreement.

Dorothy Bain KC, the Lord Advocate, referred a prospective independence referendum bill to the UK Supreme Court in June this year in a bid to test if such a move was in the legislative competence of Holyrood.

Five judges heard the cases made by the Scottish and UK governments during a two day hearing last month.

READ MORE: Scottish independence: Court date next week for referendum case ruling

"People who are wiser than me legally think this may be a no or a 'no decision' at this point. I think that is the most likely result," Mr Noon told a seminar this afternoon at Glasgow University, organised by the research group UK in a Changing Europe, based at King's College, London.

"For me I think there is a process we need to go through before there is a referendum. We've spoken about the settled will of the Scottish people around devolution.

"If I think back to the creation of the Scottish Parliament there was a process of identifying that settled will. A civic Scotland process, a cross party process.

"So for me we need to have a referendum at some point to decide this issue but it should come after a process of conversation in Scotland where we are actually working out what is we want for our country."

READ MORE: The inside story of the SNP attempted coup revealed

He added: "That is a conversation we deserve to have and it's not been had through the current independence debate where we have two sides talking over each other and not really understanding each other and not really hearing each other.

"So even if there is a yes tomorrow I would like there to be a bit of a pause and actually design a process which leads up to a referendum where we are actually making a decision based upon what we think the Scottish people are wanting for the future of the country."

Mr Noon continued: "The ideal for me would be getting to a place where you've got a proposal which commands the support of 55, 60 per cent of the people of Scotland, and you then put that to a referendum. As a supporter of Yes, that has to be a process that doesn't shut off independence as an option."

He was taking part in a panel discussion with Conservative MSP Donald Cameron, former Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale and former SNP MP Stephen Gethins.

Ms Dugdale said she first thought the SNP's tactics of making the next general election about independence (if the court decision goes against the Scottish Government) was "very smart" but following political developments including the short lived premiership of Liz Truss she thought the party would have to review its approach.

"I now think [the SNP] will have to revisit that strategy," said Ms Dugdale, who is now director of the John Smith Centre at Glasgow University.

"I think the poverty pandemic the UK is facing just now will mean it will be impossible for the SNP to make the next election about the constitutional question."

Earlier, an economist told the seminar that former PM Liz Truss's mini-budget should act as a warning to an independent Scotland about what happens when governments are not perceived to be serious about fiscal responsibility.

Thomas Pope, deputy chief economist at the Institute for Government, said Scotland spends more on public services per person than the rest of the UK. He said: "A deficit that large would not be sustainable indefinitely."

Mr Pope said small advanced economies “tend to run a tighter fiscal policy than the Scottish deficit would imply, but also than the UK Government has tended to run in the past few years”.

Five Supreme Court justices will deliver their assessment in Court One tomorrow at 9.45am.

The ruling is expected to last 20 minutes.

Ms Bain KC last month told the court the question of whether Holyrood can hold an independence referendum without Westminster’s consent is a “festering issue” that must be answered in the public interest.

She said it was “one of exceptional importance to the people of Scotland and the UK” and told the justices it was a “live and significant” issue, as the SNP-Green Government wished to introduce a bill for a referendum at Holyrood.

She said she was unable to “clear” such a bill as she was unsure if it would stray into areas reserved to Westminster and asked for a definitive ruling from the Court.

She asked the justices to look only at the legality of a limited, purely advisory referendum, not speculate about its political impact.

She rejected arguments by the Advocate General for Scotland, for the UK Government, that the Court should refuse to determine the case as it is “abstract, hypothetical” and “premature” as the legislation had not been passed by MSPs.

The UK Government’s lawyer Sir James Eadie KC argued the proposed bill was outside the powers of Holyrood and was very clearly intended to bring about “the termination of the Union”, not merely ask people a hypothetical question.

Over the weekend, two senior figures in the SNP told The Herald on Sunday that the judgment could be of benefit to the party whichever way it goes.

“Either way it can be used as a win for us. If democracy is denied, that can act as a spur for others, not necessarily in our party or who are independence supporters, to say that’s not right. There is a mandate there to have a referendum and people should be given the choice,” said one.

A second added: “If the court comes back and says ‘no’, those who support the Union may regard this as a win but in actual fact it changes the nature of the Union.

"They will be saying ‘you must have permission [for a referendum] from the Prime Minister and if the Prime Minister refuses, it is not a voluntary union any more’.

“I do think the [pro-Union] side haven't thought through what the ramifications of that are for them."