WHAT can Yes supporters expect from the two days of constitutional back and forth in the UK’s highest court? We aren’t anticipating a decision from the court’s judges on whether or not the Scottish Parliament has the power to hold indyref2 for another six to  eight weeks.

Ahead of the case being heard, we contacted some experts to get their predictions of what to expect over the next 48 hours.

Dr Nick McKerrell

Senior Lecturer in Law Glasgow Caledonian University

The case will appear a bit unusual for those watching as it is not a clear battle of one party against another.  When Dorothy Bain arises to present her reference on the question of Holyrood’s power to hold an independence referendum, the Lord Advocate will actually put both sides of the case. You can see that in the papers she has presented to the Supreme Court.

READ MORE: We're offering a year-long subscription – at any price you can afford

Where both sides are clearly in dispute is the question of the timing of this challenge. The Advocate General representing the UK Government believes that the Lord Advocate has made a legal error by raising this question at this stage.

The time for the court to scrutinise the question should be after the referendum bill has made its way through the Scottish Parliament not before, he will argue. There is a possibility that this argument could succeed which means we don’t get a definitive answer on the referendum question in the court’s ruling.

However the Lord Advocate, I think, has made quite a convincing case that the rule of law and the laws around devolution require the court to give an answer now – if they don’t there could be a stalemate with no clear end.

READ MORE: Why is the Supreme Court ruling on Scottish independence referendum 2023?

On the substantive question of Holyrood’s powers, previous cases at the Court would suggest there will be a reluctance to agree that devolved Parliaments can pass laws on “reserved” matters.

Even the argument that the referendum will not be legally binding for me does not overcome that hurdle. So, success on confirming Holyrood has the power to hold a referendum to me  seems unlikely.

John Drummond

What will the Supreme Court decide? My answer is that it may not really matter, in the end. First a health warning. If you are looking for legal niceties, seek those elsewhere. Here, I am looking at morality, not law.

And, for many, this is about morality and ethics. So, it’s important to recognise that the law derives from morality, not the other way round. It is also about how one sees oneself.

For instance, no one can make a person feel bad, unless that person agrees. Likewise, no one can make a country feel bad about Independence, unless that  country agrees.

Does Scotland agree with the role of the Supreme Court, in terms of the constitution? For instance, who decided that the Supreme Court is “supreme” in this respect? Were  you asked?

Westminster decided these matters. There is also a larger point about whether, or to what degree, its constitutional pronouncements are democratically robust in a Scottish context.

Ultimately, these matters are decided by morality. “Do you agree to be so governed?” might be the more apt question.

Tomorrow, on the TNT show on IndyLive at 7pm, I’ll be talking with Professor Aileen McHarg, who will be taking your questions on the Supreme Court.