Indycampers 'hope to dissolve Act of Union' during court eviction fight

However, it emerged that their legal case involves citing the Act of Union itself, the 1707 law that united Scotland and England leading to the establishment of the United Kingdom.

Following the hearing, one of the activists who is part of a camp 'legal team' confirmed that the 309-year-old law was vital to their position and claimed that the Act of Union "might be compromised" by their submission. Ahead of the hearing, at the country's top civil court, the camp had claimed 'the end of the Union is nigh' as they appealed for supporters to attend. 

In a courtroom packed with around 40 campers and their supporters, Lord Clarke said that a motion initiated by the activists, who refer to themselves as 'the sovereign and indigenous peoples of Scotland', calling for the Parliament's case to be thrown out was "premature".

They will instead have the chance to make the argument at a Court of Session procedural hearing on March 9, which had already been scheduled. The judge also dismissed a call to have the parliament rewrite its case, saying the court had no powers to order the move.

Lord Clarke told the campers: "If you think the petitioners' case is rubbish, or nonsense, it's for you to bring that to the attention of the court and you will get the opportunity to do that. If it sides with you in viewing the petition as ill-founded then it will be dismissed."

The Scottish Parliament has made clear that it will attempt to claim its legal costs, likely to be a five-figure fee, from the campers should it succeed in its eviction action. It has hired Brodies LLP, the country's largest legal firm, to make its case and believes the three-month-old camp, made up of around five tents, two caravans and a trailer, should be removed as it is preventing others from using the land and calls into question the estate's political neutrality.

Alasdair McKenzie, counsel for the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, raised the issue of costs for the latest hearing which he argued had been "unnecessary". Lord Clarke reserved the question of expenses to a later date.

Among those present at court supporting the campers was Sean Clerkin, the serial protestor who famously chased then-Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray into a sandwich shop at the 2011 Holyrood election campaign and clashed with Jim Murphy during his stint in charge of the party.

Now representing the Scottish Resistance, the fringe group that recently made headlines after protesting outside the Tunnocks factory after it changed the branding for its teacakes, Mr Clerkin has vowed to launch a campaign in support of the camp.

He said the group would be targeting five MSPs who are members of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body. The Scottish Resistance blames the parliamentarians for launching the legal case against the campers and said it would take action with phone calls and visits to their constituencies. Mr Clerkin said: "They have opened Pandora's Box, they will reap the whirlwind."

While the campers declined to make their motion to throw out the case public, Mr Clerkin said he understood that the activists would argue that the parliament petition is invalid as it relies on "using Westminster law instead of Scots law." He added: "They're using the treaty of union to get this thrown out. The camp is a beacon of hope and the parliament is acting in a very undemocratic manner."

Two independent MSPs, Jean Urquhart and John Wilson, today became the first Holyrood politicians to criticise the Scottish Parliament for taking legal action against the campers and signalling its intention to seek costs. One member of the group said he was "surprised" at the lack of support from SNP members and that Nicola Sturgeon had not visited the camp.

A spokesman for the Scottish Parliament said: "We welcome the court’s ruling today. We remain focused on preparing for the procedural hearing on 9 March and, thereafter, the debate on the merits of our case."