Wendy Alexander misses mark with SNP challenge

IT STARTED out as an easy debating point: If the Nationalists believe Scots want independence, why are they delaying the referendum until 2010?

Labour politicians had used it often enough to accuse the SNP of being scared to put its flagship policy to the test.

But last weekend, Wendy Alexander added a three-word challenge – "Bring it on" – and turned a routine jibe into a dramatic policy U-turn.

Until that Sunday television interview, Labour was opposed to a referendum on Scotland's constitutional future. With the Tories and Liberal Democrats, Labour would have been able to block the SNP's plans for an independence vote in 2010.

But now the Scottish Labour leader's comments have turned the debate upside down. Labour is demanding an immediate referendum on independence and it's the SNP which is taking the more cautious line and wanting to wait.

Loyalist Labour MSPs praise Ms Alexander's boldness in taking the fight to the enemy and insist the ball is now in the Nationalists' court. The SNP's bluff has been called since it will have to explain why it doesn't want a referendum now. But the party has made its position clear all along – the 2010 date was in its manifesto at last year's election.

Ms Alexander's U-turn has done more damage to her own and her party's credibility than to anyone else's. Her sudden policy switch undermined the Calman commission which has just been set up – on her initiative – to look into more powers for Holyrood as an alternative to independence. She has alienated the Tories and Liberal Democrats who are also taking part in Calman, prompting one senior Conservative to complain his party had been "stabbed in the back".

She has left MPs, MSPs and activists in her own party bewildered and confused. One Labour MP says: "The general view is Wendy has probably gone mad. It undermines all we've been saying about sensible constitutional reform and it means we're following the SNP's agenda.

"If we have a referendum within the next year, Labour will probably still be doing badly, there will be a poor turnout and people will use it to vote against the Government. Unless independence is defeated by a massive majority, the SNP will be able to claim it as a boost."

Ms Alexander failed to consult colleagues or, crucially, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, before announcing the U-turn. It is said she has believed for some time in the merits of going for a referendum and there is an internal party document from last summer in which she argues the case.

But the timing of the policy switch, when Labour is still reeling from its drubbing in last week's local elections in England and Wales, has not won her many friends. One minister has been quoted complaining: "She has been pestering Brown about this for months, and he had said no. Now she has used his weekend of greatest vulnerability and weakness to press ahead."

Yesterday at Prime Minister's Question Time, Mr Brown failed to back Ms Alexander's line, saying further decisions would be made after reviewing the progress of the Calman commission.

Another Labour MP says calling the SNP's bluff by backing a referendum is a good idea, but that Ms Alexander should have done it earlier.

He says: "What she should have done was announce this when she became leader." But a senior Labour figure says an early referendum, with little time to mount a proper, planned campaign, would be playing right into the Nationalists' hands.

"This is the SNP's raison d'etre," he says. "Their entire life has been geared towards this moment. How many people in the other parties have even thought about campaigning for a No vote in a referendum on independence?"

The wording on the referendum ballot paper will be a key issue. The SNP's White Paper setting out the options for the future includes the proposed question for a Yes/No referendum, asking voters to back the Scottish Government in negotiating with the UK Government for Scotland to become an independent state. But Alex Salmond has offered – as far back as last year's election campaign – to hold a multi-option referendum so the pro-Union parties could put forward a proposal for more powers for Holyrood, which would be offered to voters alongside independence and the status quo.

He caused controversy earlier this year when he said a multi-option referendum could use a system of preference voting, where individuals ranked the options in order of preference – for example, 1 for independence, 2 for more powers, 3 for the status quo. Opposition politicians claimed such a system could mean Scotland being taken out of the Union without majority backing.

Their answer is that a multi-option referendum should consist of two questions – one to establish whether people want any change, the second to decide whether that should be more devolution or independence. Ms Alexander has said she wants a Yes/No referendum, but has not detailed her preferred wording.

However, former minister Malcolm Chisholm, MSP for Edinburgh North and Leith, has argued independence means different things to different people, and therefore the referendum should not ask voters whether they want independence, but whether they want to stay in the UK.

Ms Alexander said Labour would consider bringing forward its own Bill for a referendum, but the party now seems to have concluded such a move would not be allowed by the rules since a government Bill on the same issue is already planned for this session.

The SNP is not going to change its position, so Ms Alexander is left powerless. She is back to making debating points – but when it comes to the referendum Bill, she has committed Labour to back the Nationalists.