ALEX Salmond – renowned punter that he is – will surely take heed of this. On Friday afternoon, the day after the First Minister had unveiled his plans to lay an independence referendum bill this parliamentary year, Ladbrokes issued some new odds.
For those who believe the First Minister can deliver on his pledge to hold the vote before 2011, the bookmarker is offering 5-1. To put that into context, prior to their defeat against Scotland yesterday, Macedonia were 9/2. When Macedonia winning
at Hampden Park has shorter odds than Salmond winning a historic vote at Holyrood, it might be time, even for this First Minister, to lay down the betting slip.
When Salmond confirmed last Thursday that what could potentially be the most important piece of Scottish legislation in the 300-year history of the union was to be published later this year, a greater fuss might have been expected.
Instead, within a few hours of Salmond rising to his feet, the Parliament had quickly moved on to the subject of Kenny MacAskill's decision to free the Lockerbie bomber. The reason was simple. With the SNP commanding only 47 of the Parliaments 129 seats, and with almost all their opponents having come out four-square against the bill, the plans appeared still-born before they had even left the First Minister's mouth.
Even former SNP MSP and passionate nationalist Margo MacDonald said she wouldn't be supporting what she described as Salmond's "foolish" proposal. "The time is not right, as umpteen members in the chamber have said. People are not concerned with that just now; it is not their priority," she declared.
A year and a bit on from Wendy Alexander's infamous cry for the SNP to "bring it on", when a historic referendum on whether Scotland should be independent or not looked on the cards, the climax of the SNP's historic first term of government is now destined to become a damp squib.
Or is it? The odds may be against him, but Salmond has been here before.Written off before the 2007 Holyrood elections, his road map to independence, which he first penned well before that year, has so far proven resilient.
SNP ministers are ploughing on, with the full might of the Scottish civil service behind them. An irresistible force will soon meet head on with an immovable object. So is the SNP juggernaut about to come shuddering to a halt? Or, by sheer force of will, and popular power, can their quest for independence overcome all obstacles?
The man with the plan is Salmond's former leadership rival Mike Russell, who was appointed by his boss earlier this year with the task of piloting the bill through Parliament. Russell has never lacked confidence. Now, confronted with a seemingly impossible task, he will need it in spades. Russell is going to have a busy few months.
This week, the SNP Government will publish a new paper on Europe, laying out how an independent Scotland would sit within the community of nations (the SNP says an independent Scotland should join the euro after – yes, you guessed it – a referendum). More papers on subjects such as defence and the social services of an independent Scotland will follow. A white paper will then be published on St Andrew's Day and then a bill will finally come before the Parliament "sometime thereafter", says Russell.
Faced with blanket opposition, Russell is emollience personified. "I think it is perfectly possible even at this late stage for the opposition parties in Scotland to say: 'Yes, we believe that the Scots have the right to choose. OK, we do not agree with the position of the Scottish Government, but let us test it.'" How could you be against asking people what they want, Russell asks? His opponents are scathing. The Lib-Dem MSP, Mike Rumbles, says that, in claiming that "the people deserve a say", all the SNP has proven is that people would prefer a referendum to "armed insurrection". And to suggest that they have a mandate for a referendum, having only won just over 30 per cent of the popular vote in the 2007 elections, says Rumbles, is "outrageous, arrogant, and contemptuous".
And yet the SNP is unbowed. For while, at this point in time, all hope of a referendum appears dead in the water, who can say what the future may hold? The point the SNP make is that, certainly in the case of Labour, the opposition to a referendum isn't based on principle, but contingency. Labour's constitutional spokeswoman, Pauline McNeill, makes the point for them. "We've made it clear that we won't support a referendum for the time being, or in this parliamentary session," she says.
The recession, says McNeill, has knocked the referendum into the long grass. People do not want to have any constitutional uncertainty hanging over them, to go with the financial uncertainty. But that doesn't rule out them backing a referendum when things get better. One SNP source said: "You look at the way they opposed our local income tax. OK, that was on principle – they thought it was wrong – but they do not have a principled opposition to this. It is just a circumstantial opposition."
So while, as the bookies suggest, a referendum seems unlikely this side of the 2011 Scottish election, if the SNP get back into power after that election, and if the economy has picked up, there is the strong prospect of the Nationalists eventually getting their way. Only last year many Labour MSPs were excited at the prospect of a vote. By 2011, of course, Labour looks likely to out of power across the UK as a whole and Gordon Brown may well have moved on to running the World Bank. So with the governing party's priorities no longer clashing with its Scottish wing, and with Brown no longer demanding control over his back yard, it is easy to imagine Labour, indeed, "bringing it on". Unless, it has already happened of course. For while the SNP continues to make its plans in Edinburgh, 400 miles to the south, there are those who would also like a referendum to happen much sooner – if not for the same reasons.
Former Scottish secretary Michael Forsyth last week repeated his call for a referendum to be held on the same day as the next general election. Arguing that the Unionist parties should "shoot the Nationalist fox", Forsyth is warning that a referendum should be held now, to stop the SNP executing its plans. Forsyth is acutely aware of Salmond's masterplan, knowing full well that the SNP leader is waiting for a Conservative victory at Westminster. Both that – and the expected cuts that go with it – will be grist to Salmond's mill. "What I want to get out of once and for all is this wretched issue of whether we want to secede from the UK. If we win, the first thing David Cameron should do is spirit a bill through Parliament to get on with it," he says.
The Forysth plan is fascinating, particularly with rumours swirling around the Scottish Tory Party – admittedly mostly among Forsyth's friends – that the former Stirling MP could be chosen as Cameron's first Scottish secretary. If installed there, he would quickly begin his campaign for an early referendum, perhaps this time next year. From the Unionists' point of view, such a plan has many advantages. The constitution, despite the SNP's claims, is still reserved to Westminster. So a Conservative and Labour dominated Westminster Parliament would get to choose the question, the timing, and the terms. After an expected victory, the Tory government would then be able to deal with the SNP without any "constitutional grievances".
For the Conservatives, however, the trouble with the plan is that it won't satisfy the SNP. Alex Salmond has previously asserted that if the SNP lost a referendum, that would be it for "a generation". There would be no neverendums, as has happened in Quebec. But Speaking to Scotland on Sunday, Russell indicated clearly that the SNP would not accept a Westminster-run referendum as the real deal.
"I don't think it would be acceptable in the terms that Michael Forsyth has put it," he says. "The First Minister has been clear that a fair referendum, run in a fair and objective way, gives the people of Scotland the democratic opportunity recognised worldwide, to choose their constitutional future. If the people of Scotland choose something other than what I want, then clearly the First Minister has indicated that it would be a generational choice. If they were bamboozled, cheated, if it were rigged in any way, that wouldn't be a fair opportunity. A lot will depend on how this is done."
So will Cameron go for it? Certainly, the referendum plan is understood to be under "active consideration" within the Tory high command. Equally some of his shadow Cabinet ministers – Scots-born Liam Fox among them – are thought to be in favour. Against that, however, is the fact that if and when the Tory leader does get the keys to Downing Street, he will have other more immediate priorities: the fixing of the UK public finances, and the reform of England's schools system, to name but two. Much could depend on the SNP's performance at next year's elections. If they storm to 20 seats, the Conservatives may accept they have to deal with a problem. If the SNP challenge is seen to be withering, the temptation will be to hold off.
Whatever Cameron decides, however, Salmond will still have that most priceless political asset of all in his back pocket – time. With another two years before he faces the electorate, and with every poll for the last two years showing he will win the next Holyrood election, the SNP can consider a six-year period in which to hold their promised referendum. And crucially, while in power, he has the Scottish civil service at his back, assisting him with his plans. They form a formidable combination.
As the bookies suggest, his referendum may not happen in the next two years. But Alex Salmond's wait may not be much longer than that.
