Leader: Alex Salmond’s stubborn stance reveals his weakness

NONE of the politicians involved in the debate over Scotland’s constitutional future is neutral when it comes to the question of whether or not we remain part of the United Kingdom.

The political world is made up of unionists and supporters of independence. Even those who advocate the ill-defined option of “devolution max” wish to remain part of the UK, albeit in a much loser union. It is in that context we must analyse statements from those involved in the exchanges over the most important, and potentially divisive, question Scots have faced in more than 300 years.

So even the intervention of a well-respected figure like Jim Wallace – the law officer responsible for Scotland in the UK government – which increases the pressure on the SNP over the referendum must be treated with care. Lord Wallace, as a Liberal Democrat, wishes to preserve the Union. That is a given. Yet, of itself, that should not mean we dismiss the Advocate General’s warning that a referendum organised by the SNP government without a transfer of powers from Westminster to Holyrood would be undemocratic, contrary to the rule of law and illegal. The key question is whether Lord Wallace is right in this case.

In our judgment – and that of many, though admittedly not all, of the experts who have written on this for this newspaper – he is correct. Under the terms of the Scotland Act 1998, the constitution is reserved to Westminster which may explain why the SNP has said it will accept the UK government offer to devolve powers to Holyrood to hold an independence referendum.

The problem is Alex Salmond has said he will not accept the offer if there are “strings attached”, including on the referendum date, supervision by the Electoral Commission and giving voting rights to those aged 16 and over.

Furthermore, the First Minister has claimed Scotland is being “bullied” by Westminster when it insists on conditions.

Let us examine this charge in the context we set out earlier. Mr Salmond believes in independence, that is a given. Yet in what sense is an insistence on the primacy of the rule of law, as it currently applied to Scotland, bullying? We fear that in his anxiety to advance his cause, Mr Salmond is beginning to equate Scotland with his party and with himself. Such a conflation would be a dangerous self-delusion which will alienate not a few voters who might be otherwise sympathetic. The SNP and Scotland are not the same thing.

That being the case, what is Mr Salmond’s stance? If the legal position is as defined by the Scotland Act, is he advocating flouting the law of the UK, of which Scotland remains part? We hope not. The First Minister would counter by insisting he can, if he chooses, hold a consultative referendum, yet he refuses to publish the legal advice he says he has to that effect. He should publish and be damned, or praised, though his failure to do so seems to betray the weakness of his position.