Ulterior motive to Labour's tactics?

WOULD a Labour government at Westminster allow an SNP administration at Holyrood to hold a referendum on Scottish independence, as pledged by John Swinney? And if not, would it be right to do so?

Suddenly these questions have jumped to the top of the pile as the Holyrood election battle hots up. In some ways, such a debate is sadly beside the point. Labour has decided to repeat its 1999 campaign tactic by making independence (aka "divorce" from the Union) the focus of its attack on the SNP. This might have been correct last time around, but not when the real election issue is a judgment on four years of the Labour and Lib Dem coalition.

That said, what is the constitutional position on an independence referendum? The SNP has promised to hold one sometime in its four years of government, should it form an administration after 1 May. Presumably, if the SNP turns out to be the largest party, then it has a reasonable case to say it has a popular mandate to hold such a referendum. Further, since the Nationalists would need a clear majority of the Scottish Parliament to vote to hold the referendum, it is difficult to argue there would not thereby exist some sort of will, north of the Border, to test opinion directly on Scotland’s views on the Union.

In these circumstances, on what reasonable grounds could either a Labour secretary of state or a Labour advocate general deny the Scottish Parliament the right to test the popular mind on independence? Certainly they could not argue there was no precedent. In 1973, a referendum was held in Northern Ireland on whether or not its citizens wished to remain inside the Union or unite with the Republic of Ireland. Some 57 per cent of the entire electorate voted to stay with the Union, though most Catholic voters boycotted the referendum. Indeed, David Trimble, the Ulster Unionist leader, has on occasion called for another referendum on whether the North should become part of a united Ireland. The gamble - which he assumes would be rejected by voters - would, he says, close down the option for a generation and "copper fasten" the province’s current union with Britain.

Finally, there is the obvious point that a refusal by London to hold such a referendum in Scotland would inflame public opinion north of the Border to no great gain. It is highly unlikely that the Nationalists will command a majority of seats in Holyrood in the foreseeable future, but a good way of making them martyrs would be to deny a minority SNP administration the right to poll the Scottish people.

Which brings us back to planet Earth. At every election since the SNP was formed in 1934, it has been rejected by the electorate. Scotland now has its own devolved parliament and, aside from a discussion about its tax-varying powers, there is no great body of public opinion anxious to sunder the Union. No opinion poll in this election has put the SNP ahead of Labour. And the Lib Dems have publicly rejected support for any independence referendum. So why are we seeing judicious leaks from the Labour camp suggesting London would block a referendum, in the highly unlikely instance that Holyrood were soon to call one? Could it be that the Labour Party is trying to deflect attention from something else? Like the state of the economy, for instance.