Neil Mackay: Let’s have a second ballot at the election asking voters if they want another referendum

Silence, however, is unlikely. The SNP – regardless of what Nicola Sturgeon says – is determinedly engaged in constitutional campaigning, as its recent announcement of a new roadmap to independence shows. Unionists are equally incapable of dignified silence.

Inevitably, then, May’s Holyrood election becomes a de facto vote for or against a second referendum. If you’re pro-independence you’ll most likely vote SNP, if you back the status quo you’ve Unionist parties to pick from. With a majority now favouring independence, an SNP landslide is effectively guaranteed.

READ MORE: Yes to independence, No to the SNP

None of this serves Scotland well – the Holyrood election, particularly amid pandemic, should be about this nation’s daily governance. On domestic issues, the SNP’s record is unquestionably dismal. The SNP is also a party divided. On social media, the SNP regularly reduces itself to an ugly laughing stock as both sides in the nationalists’ unrelenting civil war line up to attack each other, on everything from Alex Salmond to trans rights.

Couple all this with the fact that Boris Johnson will never grant Scotland another referendum and we’ve a seemingly insoluble problem with only one outcome: pain for Scotland.

So what to do? There is, perhaps, a simple, and maybe workable, suggestion we could explore. Allow me to bring it forward for discussion. It’s this: at the May election, voters are given a second ballot paper which asks one simple question: ‘Would you like a second referendum in the lifetime of this parliament?’

The question would be advisory only – it wouldn’t give power to hold a referendum, but would merely offer the best opportunity to get a clear understanding of the will of the Scottish people, and that after all is what matters most, and what lies at the heart of the constitutional question.

The idea of this ‘advisory question’ doesn’t come from the political class. The suggestion has been bubbling away under the surface of constitutional debate for some time now. It’s cropped up in discussions among Herald readers – and readers of other newspapers – on debates within the comments’ section of broadsheet websites, and in exchanges with journalists, including myself. Often ordinary people are much smarter than politicians.

Given that we’re already in an intractable situation, let’s give the idea an airing and see how it flies – we’ve nothing to lose, have we?

First of all – could it be done? Yes, it could. The updated 2016 Scotland Act devolved powers over elections to the Scottish Parliament. Evidently, the wording of any ‘advisory question’ would need to be cleared with the Electoral Commission, however, if the Scottish parliament wanted a second ballot at the May election asking this ‘advisory question’ it could, in theory, happen.

So if it can happen, then the next issue is: what purpose would this ‘advisory question’ serve?

Importantly, if the ‘advisory question’ revealed a majority in favour of a second referendum then the entire weight of the debate over whether or not this vote should take place falls squarely on the shoulders of Westminster. If – as the new SNP roadmap suggests – the matter of a second referendum will end up in court battles, then judges would inevitably have to take into consideration this expression of the will of the Scottish people.

That, however, seems to stack the deck in favour of the SNP. But there’s a flip-side. An ‘advisory question’ could also provide a powerful new dynamic in Scottish politics, which limits SNP power, derived through its cornering of the market on the issue of independence.

We need to be imaginative here – but for the sake of discussion, let’s suppose Monica Lennon becomes Scottish Labour leader, and the party adopts a position of not opposing a second referendum.

There’s unquestionably a significant proportion of independence supporters disaffected from the SNP, who would like to vote for a left-wing party, which either isn’t slavishly Unionist or has a more considered constitutional approach.

So might there be a possibility that if an ‘advisory question’ was put forward in May that pro-independence voters could express their desire for a second referendum without having to vote SNP? Voters could cast their Holyrood ballot in the direction of the party which most closely reflected how they wish Scotland governed, rather than through the prism of the constitution.

The SNP wants the May election to be about independence. So perhaps we should do that, just not in the way the party wants it to happen – which is through votes for MSPs – but via a second ballot paper asking an ‘advisory question’ about another referendum.

READ MORE: Scottish Labour must back independence

Clearly, the SNP would still do well at the election, but a much-needed opposition in Holyrood might be strengthened; and with the will of the people so declared, no Unionist party could dare oppose any democratic expression which favoured another referendum.

Now we come to the final question – will it happen? Evidently, this is the first time the matter has been publicly raised, and it needs detailed discussion. I simply wish to pose an interesting question relating to the nation’s political dilemmas.

But let’s be clear – the SNP wouldn’t back this idea. The idea of pro-independence voters being able to show their support for a second referendum without having to vote for the SNP would be antithetical to how this party operates. While opposition parties could exploit the idea – particularly a remodelled Labour – it’s unlikely hidebound Unionists would ever do so.

Of course, there’s that old thing called democracy to fall back on. Let’s say enough people did favour such an idea – what’s to stop us all instructing our MSPs to obey us and implement an ‘advisory question’. This is about democracy and the will of the Scottish people after all – isn’t it?

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald