An online campaign to launch a legal challenge against the UK Government over its refusal to grant a Section 30 order has raised more than £40,000.
Forward as One, which describes itself as "a pro-independence association dedicated to self-autonomy for Scotland", is attempting to raise £50,000 for the endeavour.
But one legal expert dismissed the challenge, claiming it stood little chance of success as constitutional matters are reserved.
In a statement posted on its fundraising page, the group said: "It is our intention to lodge an action by ordinary members of Scotland's general population against the UK Government when they refuse or ignore a formal request from the First Minister of Scotland for an order under Section 30 of the Scotland Act to devolve the powers necessary to hold a second independence referendum."
It added: "Whether or not the Scottish Government take legal action against the UK Government for refusal or ignoring of a section 30 request is immaterial, our action will have the effect of being the electorate defending its rights against the UK Government who are seeking to usurp them, this would, therefore, complement any action that the Scottish Government may seek to take against the UK Government."
Boris Johnson yesterday confirmed he would not grant a Section 30 order to allow the Scottish Government to stage an IndyRef2, insisting the result of the 2014 referendum must be respected.
Constitutional matters are reserved to Westminster under the terms of the 1998 Scotland Act. One legal commentator, posting on social media in response to the crowdfunder, described it as a "waste".
Andrew Tickell, a law lecturer at Glasgow Caledonian University, said: "If you want a Scottish court to tell you there's no legal basis to challenge the failure to make a s.30 order, by all means, waste tens of thousands of £££ on this crowdfunder. And more on the inevitable next tranche of cash sought for the doomed appeal."
He added: "There's no animus here. If I thought this action stood a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding, or even in collaterally achieving something useful, I'd be all for it. But it doesn't and won't. Unless you fancy enhancing a few QCs' pension pots out of the goodness of your heart.”