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.