SCOTTISH independence campaigner Martin Keatings says the dismissal by Lady Carmichael of his action to prove that Holyrood already has the power to hold indyref2 is not “a silver spike through the heart”.

He told The National that he has already started the process to refer the case to a higher court.

Keatings said Carmichael’s ruling was expected and she had dismissed the People’s Action on Section 30 “on a neutral basis”. However, he said she had not mentioned the SNP’s 11-point road map to independence, which was revealed the day after the hearing and had rendered the defenders’ pleas “meaningless”.

READ MORE: People's Action on Section 30 indyref2 court case dismissed as 'premature'

He said: “This means that as a matter of course, she believed she had no choice but to dismiss because she didn’t have all of the necessary information to move it from one column (hypothetical, premature, academic) to the other (not hypothetical, not premature, not academic).

“This is purely a technical issue, which would not have been an issue if the Scottish Ministers had been more forthcoming.”

Keatings said Carmichael could not be held responsible for something that was not divulged to her.

“She can only opine on what she sees in front of her, and you will all recall that I have already raised the issue of the 11-point plan released a day after the hearings, and whether the Lord Advocate or Scottish Government Legal Department already knew about that plan before arguing at the hearings during the two previous days.

“All 'round one' has done is show the public that the uncodified constitution is a bit like waving your open hand in front of your face.

READ MORE: Section 30 court case will be inconclusive, public law expert says

“You can blur things in the short term, but eventually, you realise that there are still gaping holes that you can see daylight through.

“The Advocate General and Lord Advocate have done everything they can to blur the lines in this case but the gaping holes in the constitution are there for everyone to see.”

Keatings added: “It was, to all intents and purposes a neutral ruling because she did not have available to her, all the information she required to rule, and from first glance the ruling is highly appealable, especially considering the release of the 11-point plan, conveniently delivered to the public after the hearings.

“What we need now is a referral to a higher authority and that comes in the form of the Inner House of the Court of Session.

“I’ve already instructed that process to commence.”