Referendum follies

The Labour leader in Scotland, Wendy Alexander (see? you've learned something already!) has taken it upon herself to urge the SNP government at Holyrood to proceed quickly with its plans for a referendum on independence. It's unlikely in the extreme that the wily SNP will fall for this: it's aiming for 2010, and hoping that there will be a Tory government in Westminster by that time.

However, Ms Alexander has shaken the tree south of the border, with letter-writers and columnists lining up to say that it can't just be left to the Scots: the rest of the UK ("ROTUK" -- remember you heard it here first) will have to be allowed to vote on the issue as well. As lunatic political ideas go, this one rates pretty high. Supposing a UK-wide referendum on Scottish independence is held. There are four possible outcomes, and two of them are pretty simple: if both Scotland and ROTUK vote that Scotland should stay, no problem; if both vote that it should go, then it's just a question of negotiating the details.

But what if Scotland votes to leave, and ROTUK insists that it stays? Or, what of Scotland votes to stay, but ROTUK decides it wants to boot the Scots out? An IRA-style campaign on the streets of Glasgow? An Israeli-style security wall across Northumberland and Cumbria?

Some of the srguments for a UK-wide referendum seem to be based on the idea that the act of union of 1707 was the free choice of the English and Scottish peoples. (I'm using those terems deliberately: union with Ireland was still almost 100 years away, and Wales was effectively seen as part of England). I doubt if this would hold a lot of water if it were put to a legal test today, given the lack of any true democracy at the time and the huge discrepancy between the populations of the two countries.

No, for better or worse, the decision on whether to go or stay will be taken by the Scots. All that ROTUK can do is to influence the rules, and be very clear about the consequences of voting for independence. It would be legitimate for Westminster to insist on an unequivocal question on the ballot paper, failing which it might threaten not to negotiate. And as for the consequences, well, to take just one example, SNP leader Alex Salmond has said an independent Scotland would continue to use Sterling as its currency. There's no reason ROTUK has to allow thia, especially as a free-spending, left-wing independent Scotland might make the job of the Bank of England much harder. At some point, the government at Westminster needs to spell these things out, but it's unlikely to be at the top of Gordon Brown'a agenda.