SNP's independence gambit has downsides

Politics is not short of examples where leaders make decisions that appear shocking at the time, but which history judges more leniently. The recent publication of Tony Blair's autobiography reminds us of one close to home. Blair caused outrage in Scotland in the late 1990s when he said that devolution would require the assent of the people in a referendum. Oh, and they must also agree to the parliament having tax-raising powers.

The resulting stramash no doubt vindicated Blair's early view of the Scottish media as "unreconstructed wankers". But the press was reflecting the mood of a country which believed the argument for a parliament had been won during the long years of remote Conservative rule. Devolution was the "settled will" of the people. Blair had not been involved in those debates, so found the Scottish reaction unfathomable.

Yet his decision to put the matter to a vote was correct. The "Yes,Yes" campaign united the country, generated excitement and got the parliament off to a flying start. Alex Salmond's decision not to put his referendum bill before that parliament is almost the mirror opposite of Blair's move. In each case a powerful leader makes a surprise volte face that challenges the consensus within their parties.

Blair was accused of trying to derail devolution but claimed he was making it stronger. Salmond, who will not relish comparison with a politician he dislikes personally and ideologically, is accused of abandoning his party's core principal. He retorts that his plan will allow the SNP put the case for independence more effectively. Will he too be proven correct?

Salmond's new move has not invoked the roar that followed Blair's announcement. Some coverage of the postponed plebiscite is quite positive. The First Minister, it is suggested, avoids going into an election after a defeat in parliament. Peter Jones, writing on these pages yesterday, suggested that, far from being a waste of time, the last three years of national conversations, white papers and draft bills have made Scots think more carefully about independence. I have every respect for Peter's skills, but it is fair to say that he is no champion of independence, so his welcome words will be viewed with suspicion among Nationalists. One senior Nationalist told me that unionists who welcomed the move saw it as evidence that the SNP had at last become "house-trained", and were working within parameters set by the Establishment.

Try as I might to understand the tactic, the downsides loom large. If the SNP is really to put independence at the heart of its campaign between now and next May, it needs to get the issue covered in the media. There are relatively few spaces outside the blogosphere in which Scottish politics can be scrutinised. Bringing the bill before parliament, even to be voted down, would have exploited these.

Those who defend the move from referendum to deferendum argue that "the time is not right" and it would "put the cause back for a generation". This blurs the issue. There was never going to be a referendum, because the opposition vowed to vote down the bill. And even if there had been a referendum, a third option of devo-max was to be on the voting paper, giving Scotland control of all its tax revenues and the power to generate growth through macro economic policy. Previous opinion polls suggest that this is the first preference of the Scottish people, with a sizeable minority favouring full independence.

The SNP wants to position itself as the only party with ambition for the country, the only party offering real self-determination through either fiscal autonomy or full independence. Wouldn't that be underlined when Labour lined up with the coalition parties to "vote against giving Scots a say"?

Such a scenario would have offered the Nationalists an opportunity to point to Tory Lib/Dem duplicity in denying the Scots a say while legislating for a referendum on AV. Similarly, Labour plans a referendum on more powers for the Welsh Assembly while denying Scotland something similar. It is worth remembering that opinion polls in the past showed Scots to be keen on a referendum.

The SNP says it will highlight these inconsistencies among its opponents. Allowing the opposition to vote down the bill would have been the perfect way to demonstrate this hypocrisy. There have been suggestions the bill was dropped because it might have been ruled outwith the remit of the Scottish Parliament. I cannot pass judgment on that. But surely the sight of the Old Etonian and Tory presiding officer Sir Alex Fergusson declaring the bill unconstitutional would have made quite a political impact on the Scottish street.

This decision will not cause the Nationalists to split apart. Distracting divisions between fundamentalists and gradualists caused the party years of pain. A united front delivered the government of Scotland. Yet with the party conference just a month away, some are asking why they could not have been consulted. There is a danger in excluding your foot soldiers from key decisions. After all, they are the people who have to sell the message.

There have recently been rumblings inside the Nationalist movement that there is too much emphasis on "governing well" and not enough on the raison d'etre of independence. The party, like its opponents, is now the home of a sizeable political class of researchers and elected representatives in the parliament and it has many more councillors as a result of PR. These people have come through the public services themselves, and are knowledgeable and passionate about delivering change. They would argue that such grassroots involvement is the best way to convince Scots of the merits of the SNP and independence.

Others understand the importance of good government but fear too much managerialism diverts attention and energy from the prize. It is this group who will have doubts about the deferendum tactic, and who will be least forgiving if it backfires.