THE UK Government has strongly resisted a court case from a cross-party group of seven Scottish politicians to determine whether Brexit can be stopped if the UK decides to discontinue the Article 50 process.

The news came on the day that Scotland’s Culture, Tourism and External Affairs Secretary, Fiona Hyslop, said it was “overly optimistic” to imagine that the UK would remain part of the single market.

In answers lodged in the Court of Session yesterday, lawyers acting for Brexit Secretary David Davis asked the Scottish judges to throw out the Scottish case on several grounds, most important of which is that the UK Government will not be changing its mind and cancelling Brexit.

READ MORE: Clash looms between Holyrood and Westminster over Brexit continuity bill

The Scottish Seven consists of the first four politicians who raised the case – SNP MEP Alyn Smith, Green MSPs Ross Greer and Andy Wightman and Scottish Labour MEP David Martin – plus Labour’s other Scottish MEPs Catherine Stihler, LibDem MP Christine Jardine, and Joanna Cherry, an SNP MP and a QC. Their action is supported by legal counsel in Edinburgh and by Jo Maugham QC and the Good Law Project.

The National can reveal that the UK Government has accepted that the Court of Session has jurisdiction, but says the case should be dismissed as it has no “real prospect of success”.

The UK Government’s lawyers say the petitioners – the Scottish Seven – “fail to identify the policy they seek to have reduced” and that the Government told them in a letter dated December 7 what the position was.

In a declaration that there will be no change of mind on Brexit, the Government lawyers add: “In the light of the stated policy of the Government that the United Kingdom’s notification under Article 50 (2) TEU will not be withdrawn, no genuine dispute exists as to the proper construction of Article 50 (2) and no declaratory order is necessary.”

To emphasise that point the Government told the court: “In the letter of December 7, 2017, the Government stated that it did not recognise the factual assertion and premise upon which these proceedings were proposed to be raised as relied upon in the pre-action letter of November 28, 2017, that ‘the stated and consistent public position of the United Kingdom Government ... is that it is not legally possible as a matter of EU law for the United Kingdom unilaterally to withdraw its Article 50 (2) TEU notification’.

“No such stated and consistent public position was subsequently identified by the petitioners prior to raising these proceedings. No such stated and consistent public position’ is averred in these proceedings.

“The letter of December 7, 2017, was a candid and straightforward response to the first petitioner’s unsubstantiated allegations. The letter of December 7, 2017, repeated the Government’s policy position that the United Kingdom’s notification under Article 50 (2) TEU will not be withdrawn.”

In answers covering more than 20 pages, the UK Government rejects all the arguments by the Scottish Seven and asks for the case to be dismissed on numerous grounds.

Cherry told The National: “Now the Dominic Grieve amendment has gone through and there will be a meaningful vote on the final [Brexit] deal, people need to be aware that one of the options is to unilaterally revoke Article 50.

“The government want us to believe that you either accept the deal on offer or you crash out on March 29 2019 with no deal, but we believe there is another option, especially if it is so damaging to the UK economy to leave that it is better to stay in.

"The impact assessments published by the Scottish Government last week show the very significant adverse effects a hard Brexit would have for the Scottish economy. We can be pretty sure the Uk as a whole would also fare very badly.

"Both Donald Tusk and Emmanuel Macron have in the past week mentioned the possibility that the UK could still change its mind about leaving, the implication being that such a change of mind would be acceptable to the EU27.

"Until now the UK Government have denied or refused to admit that the Article 50 notice of intention to leave the EU can be unilaterally revoked by the UK acting in good faith. This is typical of the lack of candour which characterizes current UK Government policy on Brexit.

"The weight of legal opinion says that Article 50 is unilaterally revocable but ultimately this is a question which only the Court of Justice of the EU can answer.

"The UK Supreme Court did not determine this matter in the Gina Miller case. I believe that there’s a good chance there will be a hearing on the petition and answers in the not too distant future"

Maugham said: “The next step is for the Court of Session to decide, within 14 days, whether to grant permission for the claim to continue on the basis of the papers; or to direct an oral hearing to determine whether permission should be granted; or to refuse permission.”

Meanwhile, Hyslop’s two-day visit to Brussels will conclude later today.

She told reporters: “We’ve got to be realistic here. The UK seems to be adamant that it wants to leave. We think continued membership of the EU is what’s in the best interests of Scotland and the rest of the UK. But I think perhaps it is overly optimistic to think that would happen.”