If the Government were to call a referendum now, it... [Derived headline]

If the Government were to call a referendum now, it is perfectlylikely that a majority of the population would vote for independenceand give their wholehearted approval to the process of dismantlingthe links between Scotland and England. But it would be a differentstory north of the Border, naturally.

There seems to be a consensus amongst commentators and - judgingby the timetable for the referendum, which the First Ministerconfirmed yesterday would not be until the second half of thisParliament - Nationalists alike that the majority of the Scottishpopulation is not ready to vote for independence. Yet.

By contrast, judging by the commentary in the English press,opinion down south varies from indifference on the issue to anoutright desire to cut themselves free from a nation usuallycharacterised as subsidy junkies and welfare addicts. And moreover,receiving all sorts of free public services which the Englishtaxpayer is pretty sure he's paying for, but which aren't on offersouth of the Border.

It doesn't much matter whether this English nationalist view hasany merit. What is striking is how reminiscent it is of thesentiments expressed by Scottish Nationalists during the 1970s, when"Scotland's Oil"(TM) was thought to be subsidising England and wewere without a parliament of our own.

Devolution (which was going to strengthen the Union immeasurably,of course) has left England as the only part of the United Kingdomwithout a national government, while, despite ongoing legislation,there has not yet been the root and branch reform of either fundingor Scottish representation at Westminster which was supposed tofollow the establishment of the Holyrood Parliament. Cue resentmentand discontent.

Nationalism in Scotland, however, has moved on, and up - and how!Whatever the proponents of devolution argued before Holyrood becamea reality, it has unquestionably strengthened the SNP. Firstly,through the voting system; secondly, by making them the naturalparty of opposition and then, once in government, demonstrating thatthey were at least no more obviously incompetent in power than anyother party; and above all by constantly presenting opportunities toask why, when so much is controlled from Edinburgh, other powersshould be reserved to Westminster.

Even so, I would date the beginning of the SNP's long marchtowards their current happy position from the adoption of the policyof independence in Europe, and the Govan by-election won by JimSillars. In one sense, both these events were false starts. Labourregained the seat (though Nicola Sturgeon now holds it again for theNats), and even the few of us sad enough to remember that at thetime there were complicated constitutional arguments aboutGreenland's relations with the EU have forgotten what they were.

But one thing they did do was reposition the SNP as a crediblealternative to the dominance of the Labour Party in the west ofScotland - even in Glasgow - and attempt to erect a plausibleintellectual case for modern nationalism.

Certainly, as people joked at the time, adapting and adopting theold Socialist Workers' Party slogan - "Neither Washington nor Moscowbut International Nationalism" - was less catchy than "It'sScotland's Oil". Nor, despite the best efforts of the quiteremarkably undemocratic and unaccountable bureaucrats in Brusselsand Strasbourg, has the European superstate emerged in quite theform that might have been imagined then.

But the resurgence of small nations in the EU during the 1990safter the fall of the Communist bloc helped to maintain thatnarrative. Even the collapse of the Irish and Icelandic economies,and the fact that RBS and HBOS fared so badly during the bankingcrisis, has not given the lie to these claims because, as AlexSalmond can point out, Scotland's Parliament had no substantive sayin large sections of policy that would normally fall underGovernment control.

This is the thing about wanting substantive change which the SNPunderstands, and which has brought about their success to date: youonly need to get the right answer once, and it's worth waiting untilthe electorate are ready to give you that answer. If Nick Clegg -who invested so much of his political capital in the AV vote (whichnobody, not even he, really wanted much) and who is now about towaste his time on reform of the House of Lords, a subject of supremeindifference to most voters, but littered with bear-traps for apolitician - had watched and learned from Messrs Salmond, Neil andRussell in action in the early 1990s, and their younger supporters,such as Ms Sturgeon, since, he would be a wiser and a happier man.

Independence, being a big word and a big idea, is the exceptionto the rule that the arcana of constitutional change, which sointerests political weirdos, is of no interest to most voters. Andthat is why I wonder whether the referendum which Scots will bepresented with in three or four years will be quite asstraightforward as a Yes or No answer to that question.

I mentioned last week that the subject of the Union istechnically reserved, but that there was no realistic doubt that theSNP had acquired the moral and political right to introduce areferendum on the subject. That technicality may provide a usefulcloaking device for the question that is set. What if Scots areasked to choose between (a) the status quo and (b) authorising theFirst Minister and the Scottish Parliament to renegotiate, with thePrime Minister and the UK Parliament, the terms of the currentsettlement, with the results to be presented in a furtherplebiscite?

The fact is that such complicated negotiations will be requiredto settle all sorts of questions if independence is even beingconsidered. Borders and state revenues are, in fact, the moststraightforward bits of the equation. The division of the armedforces, the consequences of tax variations, free movement of labourand goods, reciprocal residency and voting rights, whether Scotlandjoins the Eurozone: all these are the real headache.

Mr Salmond may find these apparent impediments, and theirreserved status, an opportunity to frame the question in a way whichincreases his chances of getting the answer he wants. That, I'dguess, is what he's thinking about now.

If the Government were to call a referendum now, it... [Derived headline]

If the Government were to call a referendum now, it is perfectlylikely that a majority of the population would vote for independenceand give their wholehearted approval to the process of dismantlingthe links between Scotland and England. But it would be a differentstory north of the Border, naturally.

There seems to be a consensus amongst commentators and - judgingby the timetable for the referendum, which the First Ministerconfirmed yesterday would not be until the second half of thisParliament - Nationalists alike that the majority of the Scottishpopulation is not ready to vote for independence. Yet.

By contrast, judging by the commentary in the English press,opinion down south varies from indifference on the issue to anoutright desire to cut themselves free from a nation usuallycharacterised as subsidy junkies and welfare addicts. And moreover,receiving all sorts of free public services which the Englishtaxpayer is pretty sure he's paying for, but which aren't on offersouth of the Border.

It doesn't much matter whether this English nationalist view hasany merit. What is striking is how reminiscent it is of thesentiments expressed by Scottish Nationalists during the 1970s, when"Scotland's Oil"(TM) was thought to be subsidising England and wewere without a parliament of our own.

Devolution (which was going to strengthen the Union immeasurably,of course) has left England as the only part of the United Kingdomwithout a national government, while, despite ongoing legislation,there has not yet been the root and branch reform of either fundingor Scottish representation at Westminster which was supposed tofollow the establishment of the Holyrood Parliament. Cue resentmentand discontent.

Nationalism in Scotland, however, has moved on, and up - and how!Whatever the proponents of devolution argued before Holyrood becamea reality, it has unquestionably strengthened the SNP. Firstly,through the voting system; secondly, by making them the naturalparty of opposition and then, once in government, demonstrating thatthey were at least no more obviously incompetent in power than anyother party; and above all by constantly presenting opportunities toask why, when so much is controlled from Edinburgh, other powersshould be reserved to Westminster.

Even so, I would date the beginning of the SNP's long marchtowards their current happy position from the adoption of the policyof independence in Europe, and the Govan by-election won by JimSillars. In one sense, both these events were false starts. Labourregained the seat (though Nicola Sturgeon now holds it again for theNats), and even the few of us sad enough to remember that at thetime there were complicated constitutional arguments aboutGreenland's relations with the EU have forgotten what they were.

But one thing they did do was reposition the SNP as a crediblealternative to the dominance of the Labour Party in the west ofScotland - even in Glasgow - and attempt to erect a plausibleintellectual case for modern nationalism.

Certainly, as people joked at the time, adapting and adopting theold Socialist Workers' Party slogan - "Neither Washington nor Moscowbut International Nationalism" - was less catchy than "It'sScotland's Oil". Nor, despite the best efforts of the quiteremarkably undemocratic and unaccountable bureaucrats in Brusselsand Strasbourg, has the European superstate emerged in quite theform that might have been imagined then.

But the resurgence of small nations in the EU during the 1990safter the fall of the Communist bloc helped to maintain thatnarrative. Even the collapse of the Irish and Icelandic economies,and the fact that RBS and HBOS fared so badly during the bankingcrisis, has not given the lie to these claims because, as AlexSalmond can point out, Scotland's Parliament had no substantive sayin large sections of policy that would normally fall underGovernment control.

This is the thing about wanting substantive change which the SNPunderstands, and which has brought about their success to date: youonly need to get the right answer once, and it's worth waiting untilthe electorate are ready to give you that answer. If Nick Clegg -who invested so much of his political capital in the AV vote (whichnobody, not even he, really wanted much) and who is now about towaste his time on reform of the House of Lords, a subject of supremeindifference to most voters, but littered with bear-traps for apolitician - had watched and learned from Messrs Salmond, Neil andRussell in action in the early 1990s, and their younger supporters,such as Ms Sturgeon, since, he would be a wiser and a happier man.

Independence, being a big word and a big idea, is the exceptionto the rule that the arcana of constitutional change, which sointerests political weirdos, is of no interest to most voters. Andthat is why I wonder whether the referendum which Scots will bepresented with in three or four years will be quite asstraightforward as a Yes or No answer to that question.

I mentioned last week that the subject of the Union istechnically reserved, but that there was no realistic doubt that theSNP had acquired the moral and political right to introduce areferendum on the subject. That technicality may provide a usefulcloaking device for the question that is set. What if Scots areasked to choose between (a) the status quo and (b) authorising theFirst Minister and the Scottish Parliament to renegotiate, with thePrime Minister and the UK Parliament, the terms of the currentsettlement, with the results to be presented in a furtherplebiscite?

The fact is that such complicated negotiations will be requiredto settle all sorts of questions if independence is even beingconsidered. Borders and state revenues are, in fact, the moststraightforward bits of the equation. The division of the armedforces, the consequences of tax variations, free movement of labourand goods, reciprocal residency and voting rights, whether Scotlandjoins the Eurozone: all these are the real headache.

Mr Salmond may find these apparent impediments, and theirreserved status, an opportunity to frame the question in a way whichincreases his chances of getting the answer he wants. That, I'dguess, is what he's thinking about now.