IT’S my understanding that some of the erstwhile SNP troops at Westminster were more than a little surprised to find themselves there nine years ago.

Some of them had been so far down their constituency ­pecking order that they stood in the ­nationalist tsunami of 2015 mainly to fly the flag for their party. A yellow and black rosette on their lapel but no discernible ­expectation of victory. Then they suddenly found their bahookies on the green ­benches.

Nobody, but nobody, predicted that the SNP would pick up 50 seats whilst Labour lost 40. A Labour Party that had once held near-total sway. A bit like the SNP did before getting a bloody nose in July.

You can argue what tipped the scales in 2015 was the backwash from the ­indyref the autumn before. You can argue that the “people’s party” had started taking ­Labour-voting folks for granted. You can argue that Labour setting their face against ­independence so stridently got up a lot of noses. Not to mention clambering into bed with Better Together. Whatever.

READ MORE: SNP MSPs write to radio bosses after Scottish breakfast shows axed

But the election numbers don’t lie.

Which brings us to 2026 and a fresh set of conundrums. Should the SNP group get their act together and win a wheen of seats, it would defy political gravity. A fifth consecutive term after 17 years at the helm would be something else again.

They will face a “Scottish” Labour Party which have a competent local leadership but all-too-obvious divisions between them and the parent company. Keir Starmer’s ­Labour are not the brand that once enthused great swathes of the Scottish electorate. Just at the moment, they’re not enthusing great swathes anywhere.

Sue Gray (below left), once thought the ideal ­candidate to run the entire Labour show, has taken a look at the nations and regions envoy offer and decided on balance she’d rather have root canal surgery.

Plus, nobody seems to have noticed that Scotland doesn’t do mayors and, in any event, there aren’t that many Andy ­Burnhams to the pound anywhere. Also, in the now immortal words of Alex Salmond, Scotland is a country, not a county.

What would undoubtedly freshen up the Holyrood offer are some substantial ­additions to the ranks. We await tablets of stone from the SNP’s NEC – hopefully being properly refurbished itself – as to whether the same rules will apply in 2026 as 2021.

These were, if you recall, that any MP wishing to stand for wur ain ­parliament would first have to give up their ­Westminster seat and then pay their own by-election expenses.

Joanna Cherry, who had her eye on the same seat as Angus Robertson, jaloused that the rule in question was “person-­specific” rather than “election-specific”. The person in question being herself, since she and Nicola Sturgeon, the then leader, were whatever the polar opposite of cordial is.

Fast forward five years and already ­several Westminster residents have ­indicated they’d like to swell the ­Holyrood ranks. As it happens, two of the most prominent would-be candidates didn’t lose seats in July. Stephen Flynn and ­Stephen Gethins are redoubtable politicians.

READ MORE: Has Stephen Flynn bitten off more than he can chew?

The obvious problem arises when they declare they could do both jobs, just as Messrs Salmond and Swinney once did. And just as the Conservatives’ Douglas Ross did and got cross-party pelters for his trouble. Not least from the SNP. As if, somehow, neither role deserved the full attention of the elected member.

You might argue, and I have before now, that Westminster from an indy ­standpoint is a busted flush. Even when there were 49 troops stationed there, they could be brushed aside given the ­Commons ­majority. And often were. With a paltry nine left, the game, as they say, is largely a bogey.

Yet there’s a larger issue at stake here. If we are truly proud of our parliament, warts and all, we have to ensure it takes precedence. Most especially when the forces of London-based darkness are ­intent on diluting what few devolved ­powers we enjoy. We need bonny fechters in Holyrood, not part-timers.

We need people to fight for the ­integrity and sovereignty of our own chamber and we need people motivated by and ­passionate about the unfinished business of independence. And fixated on it.

There are a number of former MPs who made what mark they could in the ­Commons. And there are some who ­chiefly made up the numbers. If the brightest and best and most articulate of them decide they’d like to plump for a berth in Edinburgh, we shouldn’t be too sniffy about it. Neither should some of the ­current incumbents. I’d rather ­serious shoulders were put to the ­Holyrood wheel.

After all, Holyrood is no different from the Commons in many respects. There are some doughty, dedicated, Scottish performers in there and there are others who are barely household names in their own households.

We all know people who got a seat ­­having put in a shift as somebody or ­other’s office manager. We all know ­people who the “great and the good” of the Labour Party deliberately tried to prevent standing.

I overheard one such Labour grandee ponder whether or not they should send some “proper” people north to help out. The subtext being that Scotland could hardly run a minodge let alone an actual devolved parliament.

That same equation about our ­encouraging potential talent in Holyrood applies across party lines. One of the reasons that the SNP has been in power these many years is that nobody could quite envisage an alternative lineup.

Certainly not a Tory one since their leaders occupied a revolving door. While it is mooted that some of “Scottish” ­Labour’s better performers are not to the taste of some of the leaders. I couldn’t possibly comment. They won’t be the first political party to harbour folk who canny stand each other. See above.

Without swallowing the Pollyanna pills, or supposing that sworn political enemies will suddenly be all palsy-walsy, (though many in truth already are) it is fair to observe that nobody has a ­monopoly on good ideas.

The first anti-smoking ban, proper PR in local government, the campaign on period poverty and buffer zones outside health clinics all had non-nationalist ­authors.

Having said all of which, I’m not in the market for supporting any legislator who can’t see the merit of asking Scottish people anew how they see their preferred future. That seems, from where I’m sitting, to be the very essence of basic democracy.

From time to time, I hear ­accusations from the Unionist parties that the ­Scottish Government must abandon its obsession with independence. Not sure I can detect that many folk obsessing to be honest. It’s true that the Scottish ­public, like ­everyone else, has the cost of living, eating and heating at the top of their ­domestic agenda.

They need to be persuaded the route to a more equitable country, the path to a better life lies through our running our own show – I think they call it a ­campaign.

Meanwhile, this last week, shrouds are being waved by our cultural community, once again facing desperate uncertainty about future funding. Even behemoths like the Edinburgh International Festival.

In truth, it’s the same kind of ­uncertainty all communities are facing at the moment and all of our councils forbye. (The latter having been suddenly shafted by a former first minister.) The root cause of all that misery is a crazy situation where the Scottish bean counters have to wait for the Westminster variety to produce a budget before they learn what level of dosh they will have to play with.

Frankly, there’s nothing very grown up about having to get handed your pocket money from another administration ­before you can plan your own future.