Lawyers for the government argued that the Court of Session had erred in allowing the case to be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union after it rejected the claim from the judge at first instance that the case was purely “academic or hypothetical”.

They added that any decision in the case could “constitute a breach of parliamentary privilege”.

But the Lord President, Lord Carloway, Scotland’s most senior judge, said that the government application was “largely a rehearsal of the points made” at a previous hearing and which had been rejected.

The Lord President added that even if an appeal were allowed, there would be “little prospect” of a decision being made before a parliamentary vote on the final Brexit deal.

He also noted that the government could appeal any decision of the CJEU in the future.

The Advocate General for Scotland, Lord Keen, said the issue was a “matter of high constitutional importance” that should be sent to the Supreme Court.

However, Aidan O’Neill QC, for the politicians who brought the case, said the government made no “arguable point in law for appeal to the Supreme Court”.

He added: “The Court of Justice should be allowed to get on with its job.”

He also asked: “Why is the UK government so keen on keeping the public, members of parliament, in ignorance of what the position in law is.”

Lord Carloway said: “That’s a very interesting question but it’s got nothing to with these proceedings.”

Mr O’Neill also expressed dismay over “procedural wrangling” increasing his clients’ costs.

“The government has very deep pockets,” he said. “It has access to taxpayers’ money - we don’t.”

A spokesman for the UK government said: “The government has made submissions to the CJEU. In any event, the Government will not be revoking Article 50.”