There's no need for a two-thirds majority, though. If the Scottish Government resign, there is no viable alternative government, so an early election would inevitably follow.https://t.co/NJ54AjXHgw
— James Kelly (@JamesKelly) November 24, 2022
Just to expand on the point, although there's a 'bug' in the rules that allows an alternative First Minister to be elected on a minority vote in the Scottish Parliament, any unionist leader (ie. Douglas Ross or Anas Sarwar) who exploited that bug would quickly find their new government losing a confidence vote, which would be decided by simple majority vote in a parliament with a clear SNP-Green majority. In theory there could then be a prolonged period of 'ping-pong' with Ross or Sarwar repeatedly being voted into office and back out of office, but that wouldn't go on forever, because the Tories and Labour would take a big hit from being seen to hold devolved government to hostage with such obvious game-playing. Where I would quibble with Mr Campbell's assumptions is that he thinks a resolution would hinge on unionist parties eventually crumbling and giving Ms Sturgeon her two-thirds majority for an early election. I think much more likely is that they would just stop putting up candidates for First Minister, and when no government is formed within the timescale specified by the Scotland Act, an early election would automatically follow without a two-thirds vote ever occurring.
But what's more interesting than the fact that Mhairi Hunter is wrong about this is the fact that she'd clearly been briefed in advance - or had briefed herself - with a 'truthy' sounding excuse for shutting down any talk of using a snap Holyrood election as a de facto referendum in order to avoid the obvious and numerous disadvantages of using a Westminster election (16 and 17 years olds can't vote, other younger voters may be disenfranchised by photo ID rules, EU citizens can't vote, etc, etc, etc). Other figures known to be close to the SNP leadership have similarly had ready-made legalistic-sounding explanations up their sleeve for why it supposedly has to be a Westminster election - ie. they've been praying in aid the Supreme Court's emphasis on the UK Parliament having exclusive control over Scotland's constitution, and arguing that this means only a mandate for independence achieved at a UK Parliamentary election will carry any legal weight. But the reality is that *no* mandate for independence from Scottish voters will carry any legal weight - the judges recognised the exclusive right of the *whole* UK Parliament to decide, not just the relatively small Scottish component of that parliament. So a mandate from Scottish voters in a Westminster election will be just as "advisory" and "non-self-executing" as a mandate at a Holyrood election. That being the case, it clearly makes sense to select an election in which you have the greater chance of actually winning the mandate in the first place - and that means the home fixture of a Holyrood election.
What do we learn from the SNP leadership briefing its outriders with plausible-sounding but inaccurate reasons for the supposed impossibility of using a snap Holyrood election? It suggests to me that their minds are firmly closed on the subject. They've made a definite - if perverse - decision to use a Westminster election and they have no intention of telling us the real reason. We may have to wait ten or twenty years for people's memoirs to appear until we find out the truth. That being the case, we have to look at the situation as positively as we can and make very sure we maximise the chances of winning a majority of the popular vote in the 2024 general election.
But it would also help to hear from the SNP what their strategy is for overcoming the disadvantages of the route they've chosen. For example: where do they envisage finding extra votes to make up for the loss of EU citizens and 16 and 17 year olds? How will they ensure that as few young people as possible are sent away from the polling stations due to a lack of "acceptable" photo ID? Will they play hardball with the BBC, ITV and Sky to secure fair access to UK-wide leaders' debates that could make or break the whole plebiscite election strategy? (The latter is probably the most important point of all.)