Questionable questions take us no further forward

FINALLY, the Scottish people have been told the questions that the SNP Scottish Government would like them to answer in a referendum on independence. In typically bullish fashion, First Minister Alex Salmond declared that he is already looking forward to campaigning for the outcome he desires later this year. That campaign, however, looks most unlikely to happen.

This is regrettable. We have taken the view that this question – whether or not the Scottish people wish to live in an independent Scotland – has been around for long enough. It would be better to settle it now, rather than to have it lingering about political debate for yet more years to come. And the SNP, having pledged such a referendum in the election manifesto and now forming the Scottish Government, albeit a minority one, is not just entitled, but has a duty to present its proposals for public debate.

Thus opposition accusations that this is personal vanity project by the First Minister are unjustified. They are only able to claim that the exercise is going nowhere because it appears they fully intend to use their power to vote down the referendum bill.

This may, in fact, suit Mr Salmond's purposes almost as well. It seems fairly clear that if he cannot have the actual vote, the absence of such a plebiscite can be used as a stick with which to beat the other parties. He will be able to claim the democratic and moral high ground of being the only political leader willing to let the people decide, in marked contrast to the opposition parties.

Indeed, Mr Salmond may privately regard this to be an ideal position. For, looked at objectively, the Nationalists seem to have run into the perfect storm that makes this the least likely time for independence to be a winning proposition. The financial destruction of the banks, necessitating the injection of vast amounts of taxpayers' money which an independent Scotland would have found it well-nigh impossible to provide, has made continued access to the resources of the UK a lot more attractive than might have been the case a few years ago.

Furthermore, would the questions Mr Salmond's government has proposed be the best way of testing this? At first sight, the idea of allowing a vote, not just on independence, but an enhanced version of independence has its attractions.

It would be better if the choice were restricted to the devolution improvement proposals by the Calman Commission and independence. The so-called "devolution max" idea where Scotland would control all taxes has little support.

And the phrasing of the independence question is highly questionable. Why talk about Scotland becoming "a normal sovereign state"? Is there such a thing as an abnormal sovereign state? Can full membership of the European Union really be assumed?

Given the likelihood that the referendum will not happen, that tackling the economic ills of the country must be our top priority, and the flawed construction of the questions, the inescapable conclusion is that we are no further forward in the constitutional debate.