It might well be.
Notwithstanding the Scottish “establishment” is pro-remain, just as the UK “establishment” is pro-remain, there exists a significant judgement of the Judiciary of England and Wales, 11 September 2019 R (Gina Miller) v The Prime Minister  EWHC 2381.
“At a meeting of the Privy Council on Wednesday 28 August 2019, Her Majesty, on the advice of the Prime Minister, ordered that Parliament be prorogued from a date between 9 and 12 September until 14 October 2019.
Lord Burnett of Maldon CJ, Sir Terence Etherton MR, Dame Victoria Sharp.
“On the same day Gina Miller, the claimant, applied for judicial review of that decision, seeking a declaration of the court that the decision of the Prime Minister to tender this advice was unlawful.
“On 6 September 2019, the court granted permission to bring the application for judicial review but in a unanimous decision, dismissed the claim. The court also certified pursuant to section 12 (3A)(c) of the Administration of Justice Act 1969 that a sufficient case for an appeal to the Supreme Court has been made out to justify an application for leave to bring such an appeal (a leapfrog).
“The court concludes on well established and conventional grounds that the claim is non justiciable – that is, it is not capable of being determined by the courts. A decision to prorogue Parliament is a prerogative power, a discretionary power still in the hands of the Crown. Such a decision is formally made by the Sovereign on the advice of the Privy Council. By constitutional convention the Sovereign invariably acts on the advice of the Prime Minister.  Decisions and action of the Executive branch of government are not immune from judicial review merely because they are carried out pursuant to an exercise of the royal prerogative.
“The refusal of the courts to review political questions is well-established. The claimant’s novel and wider legally enforceable concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty, distilled to its essence as the ability of Parliament to conduct its business unimpeded, is not supported by the passages from the authority relied on.
“It also runs into similar difficulties of identifying measures against which allegedly offending action may be judged. There is another fundamental objection to the claimant’s expanded concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty. This is that it has been fashioned to invite the judicial arm of the state to exert hitherto unidentified power over the Executive branch of the state in its dealing with Parliament”.
If our Supreme Court on appeal agrees with the Scottish Court and finds for the claimants, we must fear for the rights of “people” against the “establishment”, for ever! Not to mention how the Queen could be compromised by lower authorities than the Crown, a truly unbelievable constitutional mess.