HOW sound – or otherwise – is the idea of deliberately collapsing the Scottish Government thus precipitating an early Holyrood election, in order to hold a de facto independence referendum? This notion has been put forward by SNP MP Angus Brendan MacNeil, among others.

It stands in stark contrast to the FM’s plan to use the next Westminster General Election – coming probably in late 2024 – as a plebiscite on independence.

The mechanics of collapsing the current Scottish government are – at least theoretically – straightforward. If the First Minister resigns (whoever they may be) then the Scottish Parliament collectively has to elect a replacement within 28 days or call an election. If Nicola resigns and SNP and Green MSPs vote down any offered replacement from the Tory or Labour ranks, an election follows automatically.

It is also the case, under the provisions of the Scotland Act, that if two-thirds of MSPs vote for it, a Holyrood election can be called. However, this route is blocked because the combined SNP-Green bloc falls short of the two-thirds necessary.

Of course, the Labour and Tory turkeys might vote for Christmas, but I doubt it. Which leaves the arcane procedure of refusing to elect a new FM until an election is made inevitable.

What are the advantages of this new “Plan B”? Clearly it allows the national movement to call a de facto referendum at the time of its own choosing. Better still, it lets the national movement set the agenda. Using a UK general election puts the timing of the indy campaign into the hands of Rishi Sunak.

READ MORE: Labour MP says 'no choice' but to deploy troops to cover strikes

And getting media time for Scotland during a UK election would be very difficult. The UK broadcasters will prioritise Unionist politicians and all-Britain issues. Nicola will be lucky to get invited onto any of the major TV debates. But a Holyrood election puts virtually the entire media focus on the independence question.

There might be a few other advantages, especially if we go for a Holyrood election next October (the original date slated for an actual second referendum).

The big Unionist parties may be reluctant to spend their financial war chests ahead of the 2024 UK General Election.

But (one supposes) the SNP and the wider national movement will spend, spend, spend on the 2023 Holyrood election because it is a “do or die” operation. If we lose the de facto referendum, then who cares about any subsequent UK election.

What are the counter arguments to engineering a Holyrood election come referendum? The most glaring one is that the history of governments calling unnecessary elections – unnecessary as in being outwith the normal five-yearly cycle – is mostly disastrous. In short, the electorate usually smells a rat and delivers a verdict precisely the opposite of what those politicians calling the election expected.

In February 1974, Tory PM Ted Heath called a snap General Election on the premise of “who governs Britain”, in order to defeat a miners’ strike. Throughout the campaign, 25 out of the 26 opinion polls gave the Tories the lead. But come election day, the electorate famously gave a different answer than the one Heath expected, and Labour was returned to power.

Again, in 2017, new PM Theresa May called a General Election only two years after the previous one had given the Tories their first majority since 1992. May thought a snap election would let her capitalise on Jeremy Corbyn’s capture of the Labour leadership. And again, the opinion polls suggested Labour would be trounced.

READ MORE: Support for Scottish independence continues in sixth Yes-backing poll

But the electorate were less than impressed and May lost her overall majority. Conclusion: after voters deliver a mandate, they expect the elected government to get on with the job. When politicians try to be too clever, the electorate is apt to punish them – as it did with Theresa May.

Recent opinion polls certainly show a shift towards a majority for Scottish independence. This suggests that the Scottish electorate not only feels trapped in an involuntary Union, but also that it is still blaming the cost of living crisis on Westminster.

Yet this may not translate into public support for an early Holyrood election.

It is still less than two years since that same Scottish electorate returned the SNP to power at Holyrood, precisely as a shield against the Tories. It is possible that many anti-Tory voters will be flummoxed, if not downright resentful, if they are asked to repeat the exercise so soon.

That is not a definitive argument against engineering an “out of season” Holyrood election as a surrogate indyref2. But it does suggest such a strategy is a high risk one. It also nicely sets up the arguments for Labour and the Tories: “the Nats are more concerned with the constitution than dealing with the economic crisis. The Nats already have a majority so why aren’t they getting on with the day job”. You know the script.

There are other difficulties with the Holyrood election manoeuvre. It assumes that Westminster will simply sit on its bahookie and let the national movement use the Scotland Act to its own advantage. But look at the situation in Northern Ireland where the Democratic Unionists have deliberately sabotaged the Stormont power-sharing agreement in order to blackmail the UK Government into abandoning the EU trade protocol.

Technically, we should now be seeing another Northern Ireland election as a route out of the deadlock. But the Westminster Tory government has actually delayed calling another Stormont election.

If Westminster can monkey about with the Belfast Agreement, then it can monkey about with the Scotland Act. I would not put it past Westminster to use emergency powers, Orders in Council or even fresh legislation to block the SNP from deliberately collapsing the Holyrood administration and precipitating an early election.

After all, they could argue, we are about to see a UK general election, so what’s the hurry? At the very least, expect disgruntled Unionists to head for the Supreme Court, to seek clarity on whether it is constitutional to deliberately provoke “an unnecessary” Holyrood election.

Let’s suppose the indy movement succeeds in holding an early Holyrood election and wins it. Let’s posit a 55% popular vote for the pro-independence parties, come October. Time to run up the saltire?

Don’t get too excited. True, the national movement would hold the moral and political high ground. But nothing would have changed constitutionally. It would still be up to Westminster to agree on whether it should hold independence negotiations or not. Expect delay and prevarication.

READ MORE: Budget was 'bleak' John Swinney says as councils brace for cuts impact

In these circumstances, would the SNP-Green alliance be willing to accept the sovereignty of the Scottish people, and declare independence anyway? For that is the ultimate logic of such an electoral contest.

Indeed, the veiled or declared intention of subsequent unilateral action is the only way to ensure that Westminster takes seriously the outcome of a Holyrood independence election.

On balance, I think the arguments for an induced Holyrood election (and de facto referendum) trump the use of a UK general election, where the independence question inevitably will be swamped.

However, the Holyrood manoeuvre – let’s call it that – is the nuclear option. Without proper preparation and without a headwind of popular support, it could blow up in our faces. Not an easy choice.