THE highly anticipated first day of the Supreme Court showdown kicked off in a packed courtroom.
After making my way through airport-style security, I was handed a blue lanyard confirming I was a member of the media, while lawyers were given red ones.
While I chose to sit in Court Room One where proceedings were taking place, the majority of the press were in the overspill courtroom where they could use their laptops.
In the court, where the justices heard Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain KC’s arguments, it was old-school reporting rules – a notepad and pen – but you were allowed to tweet. The numerous lawyers from both the UK and Scottish governments were not subject to the same restrictions.
SUMMARY: The key arguments in the Supreme Court on day one of the indyref case
Thankfully, there was a media room just outside the court’s doors. Inside was a table with some chairs, a fridge, and a large TV, which I had to ask court staff to fix the audio on an hour or so into proceedings after I nipped in for a swig of juice.
Not many Scottish journalists were on the scene, I only spotted a couple of well-known BBC faces, Philip Sim and James Cook, sitting in the court, as well as two tabloid reporters I know from the Holyrood political lobby, but one claimed he was on annual leave and had joined for fun. I refused to believe him.
The First Minister’s spokesman, who I usually see once a week at Holyrood for a post-FMQs briefing, was spotted sitting in the second row of benches marked “Reserved for Lord Advocate’s Team”.
Bain spent most of the morning giving both sides of the argument as to whether or not the justices should rule on her reference in the first place, before moving on to discuss why the political implications of Holyrood’s referendum bill should not be taken into consideration.
There were plenty of references to various subsections of the Scotland Act, an exchange from Donald Dewar in 1998 in the House of Commons, and past legal judgments.
It was interesting but difficult to not get bogged down into the technicalities, or why the Imperial Tobacco ruling was mentioned as many times as it was.
READ MORE: Andrew Tickell explains the significance of day one of the Supreme Court indy case
During the hour-long lunch break, passers-by repeatedly stopped me to ask what was going on inside. Whether they were from an hour or so away or a tourist from abroad, everyone seemed to know what was being discussed.
I was pleasantly surprised to find Scotland’s second national drink Irn-Bru available in the court cafe, but I was aghast when it cost £2.40 for a 330ml can. As someone with a borderline addiction, that hit hard amid the cost of living crisis. I guess the KCs can afford it.
When the court reconvened at 2pm, there were notably fewer people in the pews. Only four journalists remained, and most of the seats at the back were taken up by tourists who came in and out.
Looking at the livestream later, I realised I was the only ginger in there. I guess someone had to represent.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here