The Empire strikes back: Gloves start to come off in the battle over Scotland's future

AS David Dimbleby surveyed his audience during BBC TV's Question Time from Aberdeen on Thursday evening, he pointed towards a bearded man in the front row.

The subject was why Alex Salmond wasn't bringing forward his independence referendum immediately and was instead waiting until the second half of the parliament.

"You are ducking the issue because you know you will lose it," the man in the front row responded. And off he went: there would have to be embassies and ambassadors, a new Scottish defence force, immigration rules and customs service. "Would we be members of the European Union or not?" he quizzed Salmond. "What about our currency? We would have to have a separate currency?" Why wasn't Salmond getting on with bringing the now inevitable referendum forward so that the answers could be heard?

Salmond responded calmly. During the election campaign, he had said a referendum would take place in the second half of an SNP term. If he changed his mind on that now, people would accuse him of going back on his word. What's more there were plenty more pressing issues in hand - such as the Scotland Bill going through parliament, into which the SNP leader wants to insert his own extra goodies.

The exchange ended a tough week for the First Minister, who that morning had endured a series of harsh headlines over his fierce attack on Supreme Court judge Lord Hope. But it also may serve as an insight for the kind of pressure that the SNP leader is likely to face over the coming months. Salmond's Unionist foes appeared initially rattled after his sensational victory last month - with David Cameron said to have been forced to ring up Scottish allies the weekend after in order to ensure he was prepared for any stern questions from the Queen. But there are growing signs that, with the dust having settled, the case for the Union is being prepared.

It emerged last week that a new committee, made up of Cameron, George Osborne, Danny Alexander, Nick Clegg, and Scotland Office Ministers Michael Moore and David Mundell, had been formed to begin discussions on the Union campaign (the fleet-footed SNP has already begun their own, with Westminster leader Angus Robertson in charge). And civil servants are reported to have been told to start the heavy lifting on producing the detailed arguments the politicians will require.

Opponents of the SNP have been forced to accept a series of humiliating lessons from Salmond over the last four years, as his brand of populist, positive and all-welcoming nationalism has convinced Scots he is the man to run the country. Support for independence may still be a minority pursuit, but, under the SNP's gradualist strategy, the First Minister has given himself four more years to convince Scots that the SNP isn't just their favoured party of government, but that his central argument - that Scotland should resume "normal" powers among the community of nations - is worth adopting too. Now the Union is fighting back. Are their guns pointed in the right direction? Or is this set to be another case where the only shooting done by Salmond's foes is that aimed straight at their feet?

CERTAINLY, in the weeks since the election, critics have pointed to a scatter gun response to Salmond's sensational victory on 5 May. First off were calls from within the Conservatives, particularly from former Scottish Secretary Lord Forsyth, to offer Salmond an immediate referendum, to get the issue settled. But this was not backed by Downing Street - which, sources say, was initially "filled with headless chickens" as to what to do in response.

The tiny Whitehall department of the Scotland Office, headed up by Scottish Secretary Michael Moore, pledged to work positively with Salmond's new team, and backed their right to hold a referendum. Then, two weeks ago, Moore revealed his "personal opinion" that two referenda may be required if the SNP was ever to win independence. His fellow ministers demurred, and speaking on the same Question Time programme as Salmond last week, Moore appeared to backtrack by acknowledging the dangers of discussing hypothetical questions.

Moore does not lack for critics both within and outside of his party - with senior Scots Tory sources now on manoeuvres suggesting that the current Advocate General and former Deputy First Minister Lord Wallace might be a safe pair of hands in the job. No-one saw the SNP's majority victory coming last month. In London, it shows.

However, sources insist, the ship is now being steadied. Claims that Cameron and Osborne have filed Scotland back in the bottom drawer following the Scottish elections, are way off the mark, Whitehall sources insist. The pair may have plenty on their plates, but the issue of how to save the Union is well up on the list of priorities. The operation is underway: Labour MPs are also being consulted as to what to do; the successful no to AV campaign is being reviewed; a list of well-known supporters from business, sport and TV is being prepared; Lorraine Kelly is being sounded out.

The working title of the campaign, "Yes to Scotland in Britain", illustrates what ministers say will be a mostly positive effort to try and sell the benefits of the Union north of the border. Coalition sources say that not enough has been done over the devolution years to press home the benefits of a wider Union. In an interview with Scotland on Sunday, Mundell notes: "The Government needs to and will bring forward more of the details so people can more clearly see the benefits that Scotland has in Britain." One Conservative source says the emphasis on the positive shows that Cameron has got off on the right foot. He said: "That suggests they've learnt the first lesson. We've been telling them that we won't win with a negative campaign. We've got to be positive about things."

But that is not to assume that the campaign won't attack their opponents' ground as well. Just like the gentleman in Aberdeen last week, Mundell makes it clear that the pro-Union campaign intends to place intense scrutiny on the potential model of independence over the coming years.

A Whitehall source adds: "Our tactic is all about detail."

Mundell goes on: "The SNP has got to start answering the tough questions and they can't just stand there and say we have got your best interests at heart and think that's enough. The debate on the substance is just beginning," he insists.

The SNP can point to policy papers which it published well before the last election for evidence that, contrary to Mundell's claims, it has already illustrated the nature of an independent Scotland. The point of the UK Government's questioning, however, appears more to be a case of ensuring that the nitty-gritty of independence - and not occasional spats about the Supreme Court or Corporation tax - stays front-and-centre of peoples' minds for the next four years. Mundell adds: "The message from the Government will be that their ultimate aim is independence, not fiscal autonomy, not getting corporation tax, it's about Scotland becoming an independent nation state. That is their objective and that is what they are about."

As a result, Westminster can be expected to produce reams of documents over the coming years on an independent Scotland's relationship with Europe, on the initial cost of separation, on its currency (it claims Scotland would inevitably have to adopt the euro), on the make-up of its armed forces, on the collection of social security, on border controls, on the longer-term costs - even, says one senior Lib Dem figure on "what uniform the Black Watch would wear if it was no longer part of Britain". Nationalists will no doubt see this as the same old scare tactics: for UK ministers, it is about laying out the reality they claim has been obscured by the SNP's smart gradualist politics.

And while, in the hours after the SNP's victory in May, ministers appeared to concede that Salmond could decide the terms of the referendum question put to Scots, that now appears to have been the subject of a re-think too.

Mundell says that London and Edinburgh should "work together" to agree the terms of a question, noting that it was important to avoid any chance of a legal challenge to any vote. In other words, Westminster does not intend to simply allow Edinburgh to dictate the terms as it sees fit. A major row appears inevitable here. Last week, Salmond suggested there could be two questions on the ballot paper: one asking people if they wanted independence, one if they wanted a move to so-called "devo-max". He points to the 1997 devolution referendum, where people were asked if they wanted a parliament, and if it should have tax-raising powers, for precedent.

BUT this format is rejected by Cameron and his Scottish ministers, with Downing Street wanting a straightforward question which simply asks people whether they want to stay in the Union or not. The phrase being used is that the right given to Salmond to come up with a question cannot be used as a "blank cheque". Mundell adds: "There is no excuse for not having a clear question and coming up some convoluted question or some multiple choice question." One Westminster source was reported as saying last week that if Salmond refused to propose a straight single question, UK ministers would organise it themselves.

How does this amount to a "respect agenda", SNP figures ask - quoting back Cameron's avowed pledge towards Scotland prior to last year's UK elections. Nationalists point out that Cameron, with his sole Scots Tory MP has not earned the right to dictate terms to a party which has just scored a victory that wasn't supposed to happen.

Unfair, Cameron's Coalition ministers reply, pointing to how they have already agreed to two of Salmond's requests - to accelerate borrowing powers, and to allow the Scottish Government to issue bonds. Put on top of that the almost forgotten proposals in the Scotland Bill, which will give Scottish ministers a handle on income tax, and the respect, say UK ministers, is still there.

But, Mundell adds: "Respect is not about saying yes to every demand Alex Salmond makes." A new steeliness is emerging within Whitehall, with minds having been concentrated on the inevitable fight to come. It may not quite be fighting fire with fire yet. But battle has been joined.