THE Scottish Parliament rarely descends to Westminster levels of thuggery and rage, something we should all be grateful for this week. But it does throw strops of its own, and as MPs screamed blue murder in the Commons, one of these lesser rows was blazing away in the chamber and committee rooms at Holyrood.

It will come as no surprise to learn that, just as Brexit was the spark in the tinder in London, independence was the source of the arguing in Edinburgh.

In particular, what question should be put to voters in a second referendum.

This might sound like a small detail, especially as, despite Nicola Sturgeon pencilling in late 2020, Indyref2 remains hypothetical, with no sign of any UK government transferring the requisite powers to Holyrood to hold it.

But as the 2021 Scottish election approaches, and with it the prospect of another Nationalist majority and a solid mandate for a new referendum, the skirmishing has started in anticipation.

If there is to be a new vote, it would be grounded in the Referendums Bill currently going through Holyrood.

In theory, this legislation is about creating a general framework for referendums of all kinds. It could give the public a final say on vexed moral issues like assisted dying, for instance.

But in practice, the Scottish Government has identified only one issue it wants to put to the test, and that of course is independence.

To ensure fairness, the Bill says every question put to the country must first be tested and approved for intelligibility by the Electoral Commission. Or rather, all questions bar one. Section 3(7) says any question previously tested and approved by the watchdog shall be exempt.

This applies, uniquely, to the question posed in 2014. In other words, a Bill drafted with one referendum in mind includes a tailor-made get-out clause for the very question ministers want to use in that referendum.

The opposition, not unreasonably, smell a rat. Constitutional Relations Secretary Mike Russell failed to slay the rodent when he appeared before MSPs on Wednesday. He declared himself mad keen on the Commission testing referendum questions. “I am entirely in favour of testing,” he told the Finance and Constitution Committee.

Then again, he saw no point re-testing a question that already had the thumbs up. The Yes/No question ‘Should Scotland be an independent country?’ was perfectly clear, he said. Not only that, it “fits precisely” with Section 3(7). Well, quite. It’s because it’s such a stunning fit that others are objecting.

There is obviously low politics at play. The SNP are desperate to keep hold of a positive ‘Yes’ slogan for Indyref2. Their opponents, meanwhile, would love it if the question was changed to a Leave/Remain format, with its toxic echoes of Brexit. They note the Commission rejected a Yes/No format in favour of Leave/Remain in the EU referendum.

But it’s not just opposition MSPs kicking off. The Electoral Commission itself has said it wants to test any question for Indyref2, regardless of whether it previously approved it.

The Law Society of Scotland and a series of academics agree. But the Government refuses to bend.

At FMQs, Nicola Sturgeon even accused Labour and the Tories of trying to “rig the whole process” by getting the Commission involved. Really? The opposition clearly want a less helpful question. But would referring the issue to an independent oversight body “rig” the vote? That is self-serving rubbish. The Commission offers a way out of such partisan mudslinging.

The watchdog has not said it wants to change the question, merely check if is the best for the occasion. If ministers are so confident that theirs remains the optimum question, what is there to fear from independent confirmation?

The fact they are unwilling to put it to the test - indeed, have created a bespoke opt-out to shield their question from testing - shows they fear it might not be approved. And if that’s their hunch, then insisting on using it despite possible problems is plainly wrong.

The Government is saying that, while the electorate can change its mind, the Electoral Commission can’t. No matter the circumstances, no matter what new evidence or insight the Commission has acquired since 2014, the question must remain in aspic, immune from scrutiny.

It’s politically stupid as well as everyday stupid. It makes ministers look shifty. It lets Unionist parties claim the Government has its thumb on the scale, and would help them run a ‘we wuz robbed’ resistance to a Yes result.

Personally, I think the Commission would re-certify the 2014 question given it is now embedded in the public’s consciousness. But not to let it even consider the matter? That’s a bad look.

The most interesting thing about this fight is that it is happening at all. We are in the foothills of the foothills of another independence campaign, yet both sides are slogging away as it if were the home stretch. It’s because we have come such a very long way since 2014.

Brexit has shown that unless a change is manifestly the settled will of the people, as devolution was in the three-to-one vote of 1997, holding a referendum on it means a bloody fight and a disputed, unstable aftermath.

Scotland may well be edging towards supporting independence, but it is not yet the settled will of the people.

That means every inch of ground will be fought over before another vote in a search for advantage. The question, the threshold, franchise, timing, funding, campaign regulations, everything will he contested. It will be trench warfare. Indyref2 will make Indyref1 look like a stroll through sleepy hollow.

And then, if there is a narrow Yes win, the fighting will intensify. The First Minister breezily predicted in April there would be “nothing disorderly about Scottish independence when it happens”. Try telling that to voters after this week at the Supreme Court and the Commons. No one planned a disorderly Brexit, but here we are in a shambles all the same. No one would plan a disorderly end to the Union either, but it’s a fair bet.

Brexit is not a template, but it is a guide: long, exasperating negotiations with London, myriad complexities, foot-dragging, grandstanding, the terms of any deal becoming a political football in both parliaments and being weaponised in elections. Possible changes of leaders and governments.

There would be a Unionist push for a confirmatory vote in Scotland on any deal, and perhaps, for good measure, a vote on whether people in the rest of the UK accept the terms of Scotland’s exit. It’s their money and border too.

Of course, just because something is hard doesn’t mean it should be shirked. Change takes effort, and a great change demands Herculean effort. But it’s also important everyone understands, as far as is possible, what is involved. The advocates of Brexit said it would be easy. Look at it. Ms Sturgeon says there will be nothing disorderly about independence. Look again. We can’t even agree what to put on the ballot.