Alex Salmond squares up to David Cameron

The Westminster government had insisted that Holyrood could not go ahead with the poll without its authority.


But Alex Salmond said his SNP administration had the right to hold the referendum in the autumn of 2014.


If Westminster and Holyrood fail to resolve the legal issue it could end up being ruled over by the Supreme Court.


Mr Moore insisted that "we get on with" the referendum which he said was the "most important decision any of us in Scotland will take in our lives".


The coalition minister, who is Lib Dem MP for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, announced a consultation about the referendum during a statement to MPs in the House of Commons.


But he’s got a Nemesis. Alex Salmond’s being as patient as Robert the Bruce watching the spider, commented Alice Thomson in The Times. He’s been playing the game for years, and has even helped Scotland weather the economic storm. He’s managed to gain a majority in the Scottish Parliament, even despite its “complicated” voting system. He’s “the best political operator in Britain.” That is, apart from Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne. The two men are “worthy opponents.” Osborne wants a 2013 referendum, soon after the 500th anniversary of the Battle of Flodden; Salmond’s preferred date is in 2014, soon after the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn.
The fiscal question. “Short of having a blue-faced Mel Gibson charge up Sauchiehall Street crying ‘Freedom’ … Mr Salmond and the SNP could not pick a more stirring backdrop to a referendum”, said The Economist’s Bagehot. For Osborne to win, Thomson continued, he must prove that it’s not economically efficient for the Scots to be independent. If Scotland started independence with its real share of national debt, it would be “£110 billion in the red.” And what about the Barnett Formula, which gives Scotland a £10 billion subsidy every year? “Mr Osborne holds all the economic cards, while Mr Salmond holds the hearts. But spades trump hearts every time.”
Stop all this wrangling. The polls, said The Financial Times editorial, still show that only a minority of Scots want independence. Salmond wants to delay in order to “prepare the ground” and to give voters some options, such as “enhanced fiscal autonomoy within the union.” Cameron does look to have played into Salmond’s hands though, since it looks like England’s “meddling” (as evidenced by Humza Yousaf, a Scottish MP, on The Huffington Post who called Cameron’s intervention “panicked”.) But the UK government should wait for the referendum, and then “make the case for the union on its merits. Honest arguments will save the UK.”
The pressure’s mounting. Cameron’s move is “arguably rather canny”, said Bagehot in The Economist. He doesn’t want to break the union. He’s “committed” to it, seeing it as “a source of strength for both Scotland and Britain.” The vote Salmond is proposing is “fiddly” – stay, leave, or get more powers. It’s definitely a poker move – Cameron’s seen Salmond’s “consultative vote”, and raised him “a binding referendum.” What the government is worried about is threefold – whether the referendum will be legal; whether there will be a clear question; and who will fund and oversee it. The legal question is a big one - if Scotland passes legislation for a referendum, it will definitely “face legal challenges.” This will lead to chaos. Westminster holds the legal cards; Scotland says it has a democratic mandate. But in reality, both legal and political pressures are mounting on Salmond.