PROFESSOR Sir John Curtice has dismissed claims that there is no mandate for indyref2 – and warned Tories that they risk “undermining the legitimacy of the UK”.

The polling expert, of the University of Strathclyde, took issue with key Scottish Conservative contentions about the Union.

Appearing on BBC Scotland’s Debate Night, he rubbished suggestions Scots rejected a second referendum in last week’s election and explained Brexit has prompted a material change in circumstances since 2014.

Tory MSP Craig Hoy argued that the election result showed there is “a narrow majority for remaining in the UK”, prompting Curtice to shake his head.

The professor responded: “The problem that your side of the argument has is you can reasonably argue ‘well it was only seven years ago that we had the last referendum’. The trouble is that Brexit happened in that interim. It’s perfectly clear from the polling evidence, the polling evidence which has now been confirmed by the result last Thursday that the pursuit of Brexit has undermined support for the Union.

“Indeed, it’s fundamentally changed the choice that Scotland now faces. Scotland now faces a choice between does it want to be part of a relatively small internal market, but one that engages in fiscal transfers? Or does it want to be part of a bigger single market that so far has only engaged in relatively small amounts of fiscal transfers.

“That’s a very, very different strategic choice than the one that was put before voters in 2014 and I think having pursued Brexit as a political party, you do have to accept the consequences of your actions. And the consequence of your actions has been to undermine the legitimacy of the Union north of the Border.”

READ MORE: Former Union Unit chief demands Tories change law to block indyref2 for 20 years

Later in the programme, Hoy concurred with Gordon Brown’s recent comments about moving away from “muscular Unionism” – though he claimed that strategy had been in response to a “muscular” and “increasingly shrill and narrow-minded nationalist narrative”.

Explaining what he believes needs to happen for Scots to be convinced to reject independence, he seemingly backed the UK Government’s “Project Love” plan, which was recently unveiled by Alister Jack. The centrepiece of the plan will be to replace EU investment with a “shared prosperity fund” managed in London, which will bypass the devolved governments.

Though Hoy dismissed the term “love-bombing”, he praised Douglas Ross for seeking to portray the Scottish Conservatives as “a positive party of government in Scotland – but one that works in tandem with the UK Government. For example on cross-border infrastructure projects and investment straight from Westminster into our communities”.

The National:

Curtice, however, raised questions about the effectiveness and basic principles of the proposals to save the Union.

He noted that the EU had previously branded infrastructure projects across the UK, but that it was not enough to stop Brexit. “The EU tried to persuade us of its merits and its value through that strategy,” he said. “So why do you now think signs that say ‘funded by the UK Government’ will be any more effective in persuading people in Scotland of the legitimacy of the current constitutional arrangement than those of the EU?”

The professor explained: “I think what you’re missing in your answer is that yes sure, people will welcome spending on infrastructure. But the argument up here is not about how much money is spent, it’s about who should decide how the money is spent.

“And by pursuing something which seems to tread on the existing toes of the devolution settlement, I would respectfully suggest to you that you are at risk of undermining your position and the perceived legitimacy of the UK, rather than strengthening it.”