It would also helpfully demonstrate that we haven't ended up with a single-party SNP government "in spite" of the election result. In parliamentary systems, the voters elect the parliament and the parliament chooses the government, and so you simply can't have an SNP government without the SNP winning an election. In the Holyrood system, even individual ministers need to have their appointments ratified by the elected parliament, so the SNP's mandate to govern alone is going to be absolutely impeccable. Just as the bluster about "no mandate to hold a referendum" has no basis in law or in constitutional convention, there is also no legal or constitutional distinction whatever between a single-party majority government and a single-party minority government, except perhaps in the fevered imaginings of Jeremy Purvis. Both have been given a mandate to govern by the elected parliament. Indeed, past precedents at Westminster demonstrate that strong minority governments sometimes find it easier to get their business through than weak majority governments with a rebel wing. John Major's greatest problems came between 1992 and 1994 when he still had a majority - by the time he'd lost it in 1996-97, he was winning almost all votes with a bit to spare thanks to an informal understanding with David Trimble, who was elected Ulster Unionist leader in 1995.
Let's just make a direct comparison between Nicola Sturgeon's and David Cameron's respective mandates...
Popular vote :
UK Conservative government : 36.9%
Scottish SNP government : 46.5% (constituency ballot), 41.7% (list ballot)
Was the government elected?
UK Conservative government : NO - Prime Minister appointed by Queen, all other ministers appointed by Prime Minister without parliamentary ratification.
Scottish SNP government : YES - First Minister directly elected by parliament, all other ministerial appointments subject to parliamentary ratification.
From any logical point of view, therefore, it ought to be impossible for the Tories to challenge the Scottish Government's mandate to do anything - including to hold a second independence referendum - without everyone bursting out laughing. If Nicola Sturgeon doesn't have a mandate to act, then David Cameron most certainly doesn't. A couple of MPs were pointing out on Twitter last night that the SNP actually have a stronger mandate than any other lead party in government in the whole of western Europe, including the Tories and Angela Merkel's CDU. I haven't trawled through the ocean of figures to double-check that claim, but it sounds eminently plausible, because it's very rare for a single party to get 46.5% of the vote in a proportional system (in fact it's pretty rare in a majoritarian system as well).
These points are so unanswerable that you can begin to understand why there's been such a determined effort from the unionist media to establish the narrative that the SNP somehow didn't 'really' win the election. They're hoping that people will just accept that as a fact and view anything that happens from this point on (for example any attempt by Westminster to block an independence referendum) through that ludicrously distorted lens. It's up to us to get the real facts out there, because no-one is going to do it for us.