International affairs have a habit of coming to the fore shortly before Scottish Parliament elections.

Before the first, back in 1999, it was Kosovo, which prompted Alex Salmond’s memorable intervention about something he considered “unpardonable folly”, while in 2003 it was Iraq.

Libya, meanwhile, was the backdrop to the 2011 devolved elections (as in Iraq, operations began on 19 March), and this time round it’s the ongoing civil war in Syria and heightened security situation following the Paris attacks.

On one level, of course, foreign affairs ought not intrude into Holyrood elections, for it’s a reserved function, the preserve of Westminster and the UK Government. But devolution-era politics has never been that neat and tidy: all administrations – UK or Scottish – are expected to have a position.

This can cause trouble. Mr Salmond’s condemnation of NATO action in the Balkans was perceived to have lost votes, and although Iraq wasn’t a problem for Labour in 2003 it later became one. Keen not to repeat his mistake, the former SNP leader backed air strikes in Libya, although you wouldn’t think it to listen to him now.

The current international situation combines elements of Iraq, Libya and Syria and is, it doesn’t really need repeating, fiendishly complex. Once again, the Scottish Government is required to adopt a position, its stance all the more important given its much-enlarged group of MPs at Westminster. In the past it didn’t really matter how the SNP’s half dozen MPs voted in the Commons; today they could be pivotal.

Until the events in Paris Nationalists had pretty much set themselves against air strikes in Syria (although its position after the decisive Commons division in 2013 was less unequivocal), arguing that it a) wouldn’t make much difference and b) might end up making things worse. This was a reasonable position, and one more or less supported by the Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC).

But matters are coming to a head. Today the Prime Minister will set out his Strategic Defence Spending Review, while later this week he’ll respond formally to the FAC, and in doing so will set out the case for military action against Islamic State (IS) together with a broader strategy for Syria and the region. Another Commons vote to authorise air strikes could follow before Christmas.

Interviewed on the BBC yesterday the Chancellor George Osborne upped the ante, declaring that the UK had never been a country “that stands on the sidelines”, and that having “retreated within itself for a bit” after Iraq, now it was “seeing there is a price for not getting involved”. According to another Sunday newspaper the Prime Minister will warn MPs that the UK should start behaving like “Churchill not Chamberlain” if it wants to help defeat terrorism.

Now this might be over the top, a jingoistic Toryism many will find distasteful, but it’s at least a clear position. The SNP, meanwhile, are still sending out mixed messages: a few days ago Nicola Sturgeon shifted into “listening” mode rather than unequivocal opposition to airstrikes (as agreed at conference), while yesterday her deputy Stewart Hosie continued to insist that a UN resolution ought to specifically authorise military action before he and other Nationalist MPs would consider voting in favour.

So the recent – and unanimous – United Nations Security Council backing for countries to take “all necessary measures” isn’t enough for the SNP, rather Hosie wants the “de minimis” position to “ensure that what happens is actually legal”. “We should not be blundering into another conflict,” he said, “dropping yet more ordnance on a place that is awash with people dropping bombs.” That said, he took care to concede that there might, “potentially, be a place for military action as part of a wider solution.”

On one level, the SNP is correct to sound a note of caution as events unfold in the weeks ahead. Received wisdom, especially in the realm of international affairs, can be a dangerous thing, but at the same time – as I predicted in last week’s column – outright opposition is proving an sustainable position.

There are a number of reasons for this. First, the SNP’s tendency to hide behind the United Nations and Foreign Affairs Committee has been overtaken by events. Not only does it elevate the UN to a position shared by few in the international community, but it puts authorisation at the mercy of a Russian veto. Meanwhile Crispin Blunt, the Conservative chairman of the FAC, now believes the conditions he’d set out as necessary to justify military action could now be met. “It remains”, he wrote yesterday, “for the prime minister to demonstrate that our Government is properly focused on how.”

Second, the SNP takes its international profile seriously and holds great store by being perceived as credible and responsible (last week the First Minister said it would be “irresponsible” not to take stock after events in Paris). That’s what governed the party’s 2012 U-turn on a hypothetically independent Scotland’s membership of NATO, and a similar dynamic will now be at play.

Third, there is the electoral calculation. The more central foreign policy becomes to Scottish and UK politics, the greater the potential for division, and division also means the potential for fewer votes. So with public opinion clearly hardening in favour of more robust action against IS, the SNP will be acutely aware that the sight of its 55 MPs marching into the No lobby alongside pacifist Corbynistas might not go down well with “mainstream” Scotland.

Clearly hoping to concentrate their minds (and those of Labour MPs), Mr Osborne has warned that another failed vote in the Commons would be a “publicity coup” for IS and send a “terrible message” about the UK’s role in the world, although that’s a little rich given recent cuts to defence spending. In other areas, though, the Chancellor is set to announce extra cash for stealth fighter jets and counter-terrorism.

The UK Government also intends to press ahead with Trident renewal, which will be the subject of an SNP-sponsored debate in the Commons tomorrow. Wearing their defenders-of-the-RAF hats, Nationalist MPs will warn that the UK is facing a “defence capability gap” following years of “indiscriminate cuts”, something that is “now potentially hampering our ability to respond to a new raft of threats”. Scrap Trident, they’ll argue, and that can be put right.

But Tuesday’s debate is essentially posturing, contrived to highlight divisions within the Labour Party (which of course exist) and maintain the SNP’s position as guardians of the pseudo-left flame. Finessing (i.e. changing its position) on air strikes would have the added advantage of further isolating the auld enemy (Labour) as Jeremy Corbyn fumbles his response to Paris and virtually everything else involving defence and foreign affairs.

For all its affectations about “principle” the SNP hates to be on the losing team, on the wrong side of public opinion, and while it might provoke dissent on the fringes that’s preferable to losing its majority next May. This week and next will constitute Nicola Sturgeon’s first big foreign policy test but hey, we’re all pragmatists now: who’d have thought the ostensibly “socialist” Francois Hollande would end up being so bellicose?