Back in late 2000 I'd just started my first grown-up job at the Evening News in Edinburgh.

I used to sit next to another reporter called Karen Rice, who covered a lot of political stuff. Given I eventually wanted to do the same, I paid attention to what she was working on.

In early December that year she'd been told by a well-placed contact that Alex Salmond, who'd recently stood down as SNP leader, was intending to quit the fledgling Scottish Parliament and instead remain an MP at Westminster.

Naturally, he denied it, although in a Delphic way, telling Karen (in response to her questioning) that "this dog won't hunt". Whatever that meant, it certainly wasn't unequivocal for the story turned out to be true.

I recount this story because recently I've had a feeling of deja vu. Almost as soon as the First Minister announced his intention to resign, reports surfaced that he was considering rejoining what he denigrated during the referendum campaign as the "Westminster elite".

Specifically, the plan would be to run in the Gordon constituency, soon to be vacated by the veteran Liberal Democrat Sir Malcolm Bruce; as it overlaps with Mr Salmond's Holyrood constituency, fertile territory for a comeback kid.

Again, it has been refuted, although the denials fall into what cynics call the "non-denial" category. Last month an SNP spokesman said the outgoing First Minister had "no plans to stand as MP for Gordon" while, more recently, Mr Salmond himself protested that he hadn't considered the matter. Both statements did not rule out the prospect.

Mr Salmond has, however, repeatedly made it clear that he'll continue as the MSP for Aberdeenshire East, although of course that isn't inconsistent with also contesting Gordon. He wouldn't be the first Holyrood member to juggle a dual mandate, nor undoubtedly the last. Besides, only a year separates next year's General Election from the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections.

A majority of those I've spoken to in recent weeks - and that includes many who know the great man's mind better than I do - are convinced he's preparing for what one called the "quickest comeback (attempt at least) in political history".

As one senior UK Government source put it: "There's an easy narrative for him - make sure the Vow is delivered, hold their feet to the fire, only Nationalist MPs can hold the Government to account, and so on." Mr Salmond will, naturally, play his cards close to his chest; one source even believes he'll announce the move in his valedictory speech at the SNP conference next month.

It would also give the party's Westminster campaign next year a much-needed boost. Usually it gets squeezed by the inevitable "vote Labour to keep the Tories out" dynamic, polls around 20 per cent and retains its incumbent MPs. This time round that mould could easily be broken. Who better to ensure it is than Alex Salmond?

And while the SNP have long argued that they might, just might, hold the balance of power in a hung Parliament, that no longer appears a quixotic aim given the state of the two main parties and, of course, the LibDems. Even opponents are speculating that the SNP tally next May could be in double figures, if not as high as 15, becoming the chief beneficiaries of any collapse in the LibDem vote.

Another supporting argument, although one that's unlikely to be explicit, would be ensuring that such a big political figure doesn't create problems for his successor, Nicola Sturgeon. Back in 2000-04, Mr Salmond was actually a very conscientious former leader, never creating difficulties for John Swinney (no matter how bad things got), and it helped that he was in London most of the time rather than Edinburgh.

At the same time, 2015 will not be like 2001 and Mr Salmond's status is of course considerably elevated as a result of winning two devolved elections and helping deliver an historic Yes vote at the referendum. Maintaining a low profile won't be an option, and nor will he desire to. Westminster, after all, offers significant scope for grandstanding, and populist politicians can never resist a bit of grandstanding.

Even critics concede that, in an otherwise "dull" House of Commons, the former First Minister wouldn't be badly received, and although the Lobby now takes a cooler view of Mr Salmond, having witnessed his less attractive side during the closing weeks of the referendum, they of course like anyone who makes, in that hackneyed phrase, "good copy".

Some in the Nationalist camp actually believe Mr Salmond heading up an alternative "power base" in the National Movement would be a good thing, and beneficial - rather than a threat - to Nicola Sturgeon as the new first minister. Freed up from the day-to-day business of government, Mr Salmond could, as "father" of the Yes movement, concentrate on the big-picture constitutional stuff while Ms Sturgeon gets on with maintaining the SNP's reputation for competent government ahead of the 2016 elections.

As one source put it: "They ran as a leadership team and it has worked as a team. I suspect it will continue as such albeit with different formal positions." Of course, they might all be wrong, guilty of over-analysing his intentions, and instead Mr Salmond, as others have speculated, intends to see out his days quietly making money. For what it's worth, my guess is that he'll find the scenario outlined above irresistible. Sure, he'll continue to deny it, just as he did in late 2000, and just as he denied speculation he'd return as SNP leader four years later. A few months ago he was also maintaining he'd fight the 2016 Holyrood elections no matter what the referendum outcome, although to be fair he didn't really have any choice lest speculation build as to his intentions.

Besides, consistency has never much bothered him. On the Today Programme last week he shamelessly redefined the meaning of "once in a generation" as applied to independence referendums (as indeed has Ms Sturgeon) while, challenged to justify his "betrayal" narrative, launched within hours of the referendum result, there has been much wriggling.

At one point, he appeared to suggest it was the Prime Minister's intention to introduce English Votes for English Laws, yet the SNP have long supported that procedural reform; in other interviews it appeared to be the fact that was to be discussed "in tandem with" more powers for the Scottish Parliament. Yet that timetable was dictated by events in Scotland rather than the other way round; and if the "betrayal" hinges upon "extensive new powers", surely one must await Lord Smith's recommendations?

But the detail, much like official denials, doesn't really matter; what's important is the mood music, the overall political narrative, the fashioning of which has long been a particular talent of the outgoing First Minister. What better arena in which to continue that process than the Mother of all Parliaments?