Mr Salmond is a big beast and politics needs more

The gushing tone put his later denigration of 'Westminster' - indeed he's helped make it the equivalent of 'Washington' in US political discourse - but then I guess Salmond would argue that he was describing a system rather than a debating chamber.

At the same time it's impossible to separate the Commons from that system, elected by first past the post and located, of course, in the 'dark star' that is London. But then as F Scott Fitzgerald put it, first-rate intelligence involved having the ability 'to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function'.

A few weeks ago in this column, and despite not knowing him (copyright A. Salmond), I predicted the former First Minister would find the idea of returning to the House of Commons 'irresistable', and so it has proved. In Ellon yesterday he said he found it 'impossible to stand on the sidelines'.

This is, broadly speaking, to be welcomed: Mr Salmond is a big beast and UK politics needs more big beasts rather than fewer. He'll only be 60 by the time he contests Gordon next May which, such things being relative, still leaves him a relatively young politician.

He'll also liven things up in the Imperial Parliament where, with one or two exceptions, the current SNP representatives aren't exactly high calibre. Salmond said yesterday he had no intention of ousting Angus Robertson as Westminster group leader (assuming he's elected) but would instead seek 'to have a role in negotiating the progress for Scotland which would arise from a powerful group of SNP MPs and our allies'.

This, however, seems unlikely. Given Salmond's status within the party and assuming the SNP ends up with more than a dozen MPs it is inconceivable that the former First Minister would not end up as de facto leader of the group (not to forget Plaid Cymru, with whom the SNP has a long-standing Commons alliance). Any other suggestion in the interim is about saving face, although there are signs the MP for Moray would welcome a break.

At the same time running in Gordon isn't risk free. As the outgoing MP Sir Malcolm Bruce pointed out on twitter, his constituents overwhelmingly rejected independence in September, and if the Unionist parties organised themselves effectively enough then a 'stop Salmond' coalition could make it a close run thing rather than a shoe-in for 'the Boss'.

Of course that's unlikely, and even Salmond has predicted that his main opponent is likely to be a Conservative rather than the Liberal Democrat candidate Christine Jardine.

Yesterday's performance in Ellon also served as a reminder of Salmond's less admirable qualities. He repeated - yet again - that the Smith Commission was 'not devo-max, it is not home rule, it is certainly not near federalism', when the Vow, and this bears repeating, never said it would be. Indeed, when Andrew Neil and Michael Portillo recently pointed this out to the former First Minister on BBC's This Week, Salmond's contrived and aggressive response told its own story.

But having set Smith up to fail within hours of the referendum result, Salmond simply can't help himself, thus his return to Westminster is predicated on a trademark piece of spin and phony outrage. It will be interesting to see how seriously the Lobby takes him down there, and as I've commented before many of them did not like what they saw at close quarters during the closing stages of the Battle for Scotland.

Talking of the referendum result, humility still seems in short supply from the man who, after all, led the pro-independence campaign to defeat.

Following the 1995 Quebec referendum Jacques Parizeau famously blamed 'money and ethnic votes' for the narrow No vote, and since 18 September Salmond has blamed everyone except himself, chiefly older voters, 'the Vow' (despite lots of academic evidence to the contrary) and of course the BBC which he believes is irretrievably biased against the 'national cause'.

Salmond repeated yesterday that the SNP, now led, let's not forget, by Nicola Sturgeon, would not reach a deal with the Conservative Party in 'any shape or form' after next May, but he hasn't ruled out some sort of alliance with Labour, a confusing distinction given the SNP's belief - repeated ad nauseam since the mid-1990s - that Labour and the Conservatives are essentially indistinguishable.

The former First Minister believes, in common with many other seasoned observers, that another hung Parliament will be the result of the next general election and therefore, as he put it, 'in that Westminster difficulty there lies an opportunity for Scotland', or rather him and the SNP, which Salmond considers to be the same thing.

I still can't help feeling this overstates the likely influence of even a significantly enlarged SNP group of MPs. In 2010 the three main parties ran a mile from the prospect of a Parliamentary deal with the Nationalists, and that's likely to be the case again regardless of the arithmetic. Of course that might work to the SNP's advantage, as would another Conservative government with a slim overall majority, something many senior Tories still believe is possible.

So, assuming Salmond wins in Gordon, who will run the SNP? Since 2004 the party has essentially enjoyed a highly effective dual leadership - Salmond and Sturgeon - and there seems no compelling reason to change that now, indeed nothing the new First Minister has said over the past few weeks suggests she's unhappy at that prospect.

Besides, it's unlikely her predecessor will intervene in Holyrood matters, instead focusing on the business community (he enjoys the dinner circuit) and his main strength, constitutional strategy.

It's easy to speculate what Labour would give for two such high profile and popular leaders, and given that much of the political action is likely to be taking place at Westminster in the immediate future, then Salmond redux will be in the right place and, he hopes, at the right time.

There's another interesting passage in Salmond's 2010 Commons speech. His long career as an MP, he told the House, had strengthened his "absolute conviction that the case for our having full determination over Scotland's finances and resources has never been more urgent". It's almost as if he knew how the cards would fall five years later.