MATT QVORTRUP

Referendums

Alex Salmond is usually a combative politician. Yesterday, however, he seemed more cautious when presenting the white paper on an independence referendum. Rather than arguing for a referendum straight away, he said the white paper "merely sets out the ground from the National Conversation by exploring the concept of independence and other constitutional possibilities. It is the starting point of the conversation and the people of Scotland can now carry it forward to reach an informed decision on their future."

Of course, Mr Salmond may have political reasons for being heedful. Although the latest polling suggests support for the SNP running at an unprecedented 48%, a significant majority of the Scottish voters are, also according to the polls, still opposed to outright independence.

Moreover, the opposition parties have joined together to denounce a referendum on independence. The latter have a majority in the Scottish Parliament, something the SNP minority administration lacks.

The opposition parties seem to think they have tamed the independence beast for now; they reckon Mr Salmond and the SNP are unable to hold a referendum without a majority at Holyrood. They are gravely mistaken.

A quick glance at the experience in other countries suggests the First Minister is in a much stronger position than the opposition realises - indeed, probably stronger than he knows himself.

The fact of the matter is that some of the most significant referendums in European history have been held by minority governments, and against the wishes of the opposition.

In France, General Charles de Gaulle submitted proposals for Algerian independence to the voters - and won - when parliament was unwilling to support him. More to the point, in Quebec in Canada, the Parti Québécois (roughly the equivalent of the SNP) followed the same strategy in both 1980 and 1995, when (unsuccessful) referendums on independence were held in the francophone province.

Constitutional purists might argue that such a referendum would be unconstitutional. That is technically correct, but it hardly matters; under the British constitution, all referendums are but advisory, as parliament is sovereign.

Politics is not about abstract principles but about public support. Reference to constitutional doctrine matters little if you can win approval by the High Court of the People; that is, the electorate. History is particularly illustrative on this point: all successful advisory referendums have resulted in implementation of the proposals.

In other words, if Mr Salmond and the SNP decided to do so, they could hold a referendum and the other parties would have little choice but to support the choice of the people. Complacency is not an option for the Unionist parties. They have to act lest it is too late.

Having overtaken the Tories in the polls, the new Prime Minister might have experienced a "Brown Bounce". But this is dwarfed by the "Holyrood honeymoon" experienced by Mr Salmond and his merry men and women. While a majority still oppose independence, support for the SNP is at a historical high. Given the unprecedented popularity of the current administration in Edinburgh, the chances of winning a referendum might never be better.

Again, experiences from other countries are useful; most successful referendums are held shortly after a government has been elected to power. The devolution referendum in 1997 is a good example of this.

One of the reasons why the Parti Québécois lost the referendum in 1980 was that it waited. Had it held a referendum when elected to power in 1976, it would have won. The longer Mr Salmond waits, the greater are the chances that he loses the vote.

Only a vote of no confidence could block a referendum. The First Minister could hold one by what is known as an order in council. He does not need a positive vote in parliament. Charles de Gaulle revolutionised France by using the referendum. It remains to be seen if Alex Salmond has the courage and the political acumen of the French statesman.