Irvine's MP has joined 74 other colleagues in a bid to stop Prime Minister Boris Johnson from overriding Parliament’s wishes on Brexit. 

Central Ayrshire MP Dr Philippa Whitford is a member of a group of Parliamentarians who have raised a judicial review at the Court of Session in Edinburgh. 

They claim it would be ‘unconstitutional” for the PM to suspend Parliament to force through a no deal Brexit. 

Lawyers acting for the parliamentarians - Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson SNP MP Joanna Cherry, and former Tory Heidi Allen are also included among their number - addressed Lord Doherty at Scotland’s highest civil court on Tuesday. 

They want judges there to rule that it would be unlawful for the PM to prorogue Parliament in order to force through a no deal Brexit on October 31. 

Their actions arose after sources close to Mr Johnson suggested in press reports that the PM may carry out the move. 

The parliamentarians believe there is no majority in the Houses of Parliament for a so called ‘Hard Brexit’ and that it is unlawful for the PM to carry out the proroguing process. 

On Tuesday, the legal team acting for the parliamentarians argued that the case was so serious that it raised legal issues of “profound constitutional significance.”

Lawyers acting for the politicians argued that the matter should bypass the normal process for cases heard in the Court of Session. 

They argued that the matter should be heard as soon as possible by the most senior judges who sit in the Court of Session, the Inner House. 

The lawyers also argued that the Parliamentarians should be granted a protective expenses order - this means that their personal assets would be protected in the event that their legal bill in the case exceeds £5,000. 

According to the terms of the order being sought, if the government were to lose its case, it would only have to pay £30,000 in legal expenses to the MPs. 

But on Tuesday, Lord Doherty refused to fast track the bid and ordered that the case should be heard by one judge in the Outer House of the Court of Session. 

He also granted a protective expenses order but ordered that the MPs and the government should have to pay £30,000 of any legal bills incurred during the action. 

Fixing a date for a hearing in the case on September 6 2019, Lord Doherty said: “I am very clear at this stage and on the basis of the material before me I am not in a position to conclude this is an appropriate case to report to the Inner House before the issues have been properly focussed.” 

The Parliamentarians have instructed Aidan O’Neill QC, the same Scottish lawyer who successfully argued before Europe’s highest court last year that the UK government could withdraw its article 50 notification. 

Papers lodged in the case state that it “undoubtedly raises legal issues of profound constitutional significance and these require to be considered and determined as a matter of extreme urgency”.

Mr O’Neill wasn’t present in court so Lord Doherty was addressed by his assistant, junior counsel David Welsh. 

He said it was vital that the courts be allowed to carry out their fundamental role to provide rulings on what the law is and how it should be applied. 

He said: “There’s ample reason to suspect that the respondents will simply try to delay and slow down these proceedings as much as possible.”

Mr Welsh added that there was a “highly unusual restricted timescale” to deal with the action and that was why the exceptional request was being made to take the case straight to the Inner House.

The papers also state that the MPs should be allowed to be protected from high legal bills. The petition states: “For the sake of comparison, a non ministerial MP’s gross salary is currently set at £79,468.

“They all have private responsibilities to their families not to expose themselves to financial risk arising from the conduct of their public duties and whilst there is some crowdfunding in place, it is a limited nature and will not cover the anticipated costs of this matter proceeding to a final conclusion.”

Andrew Webster QC, for the UK government, said that the respondent was willing to seek to endeavour that the matters would be dealt with before October 31. 

He said:  “So far as the motion for reporting the matter to the Inner House, there is frankly no compelling need to do so.”

As for the expenses order, Mr Webster said that the petitioners have a combined income of £5.5 million from parliamentary salaries and further £100,000 has been raised from crowdfunding from the legal action. 

The case will be heard next month.