Eddie Barnes: What's next for Sir Tom Hunter?

Scotland's richest man says it is time the people decided on independence, but MSPs show no signs of clearing the stage yet.

JUST over a year ago, Sir Tom Hunter stood in front of an assembled audience of the great and the good at a dinner in Glasgow's Kelvingrove Museum to declare that Scotland was on the verge of a "New Enlightenment". Scotland's wealthiest man – and one of its most influential – was ready to point the way: the country had to be "brave", he said; politicians had to "step up a gear".

Today, in calling for an immediate referendum on independence, he has shown exactly what he meant. Displaying all the hallmarks of the entrepreneur-in-a-hurry, Hunter says it is time for politicians to clear the stage so that the people can decide. It is clear that his patience has been broken largely by the performance of Scotland's leaders last week, when Scottish politicians' love affair with the constitution once again came to the fore.

The script, says Hunter today, "came from an Ealing comedy". It started on Tuesday, when Labour leader Wendy Alexander, the Lib Dems' Nicol Stephen and Tory leader Annabel Goldie unveiled their joint plan – an independent Commission, to be headed up by Sir Kenneth Calman. This time next year it will provide "an MoT" on Scottish devolution, 10 years after Donald Dewar first published the Scotland Act.

As one would expect from a body put together by three parties more used to tearing each other's hair out, it did not get off to the best of starts. At the appointed hour, Goldie, Stephen and Calman were all present and correct. But, as 11am came and went, Wendy Alexander didn't turn up. She finally got there 20 minutes late, and only then did the four of them face the media.

That last-minute hitch was in keeping with the tortuous gestation of the Commission, which has been dominated for weeks by the awesomely important question – to political anoraks, at least – of whether or not Gordon Brown was seeking to "downgrade" its status by renaming it as a "review". Finally, on Tuesday, Brown grudgingly used the 'Commission' word for the first time. Supporters last week sought solace in small signs of hope: the fact that Calman's appointment, confirmed privately for a week prior to its announcement, had not leaked was seen as a sign that these political foes could be trusted with each other's secrets.

The SNP made hay with the Commission's wobbly start, but in truth it did little better. On Wednesday, at the launch of phase two of Alex Salmond's 'National Conversation', things were going equally pear-shaped. The First Minister was taking questions from an invited audience on the detail of his own plans to hold an independence referendum in 2010, and was asked if it would be a straight "yes/no" option. Salmond replied that it would be possible to hold it under the Single Transferable Vote system, under which people rank their preferences. It soon became clear that, under such a system, only 26% of people would be theoretically required to back independence on their first preference, for it to emerge as the victor. Cue a spate of damaging headlines suggesting that Salmond was trying to get independence "via the back door".

"It would be funny if it wasn't so serious," says Hunter. He accuses all the politicians involved of posturing and pontificating. For Hunter, the farce should now be ended and the matter should be put to the Scottish people. Do they want independence – yes or no? So the matter can be settled once and for all. So how far away are we from that day, if it comes at all?

Like a pair of trains flying round a toy track on parallel lines, the two constitutional bodies are now destined to trundle on for at least the next year, independent of one another and never meeting.

On the Unionist side, the path is at least reasonably clear. Six party nominees will soon be chosen who will sit alongside Sir Ken and begin the long process of sifting through the views of 'Civic Scotland'. An interim report will come back this autumn. Calman will then present his full report next spring.

The course of Salmond's National Conversation is less obvious. The First Minister's aides say they want the "conversation" to be focused on "real-life issues", so that people can see the relevance of the constitutional issues they are trying to raise. The SNP is setting up a working group on the siting of Trident in Scotland, raising the fact that the decision currently rests at Westminster. They are also to hold a summit on firearms – again highlighting the fact that Whitehall is blocking SNP plans to outlaw air guns in Scotland. Meanwhile, the website that represented phase one will continue to offer the public a chance to air their views.

So far, so worthy. The fireworks will begin when the two trains reach their destination. On the Unionist side, many see massive problems ahead. "The problem with reports is that they report," said one wry Labour minister down south. Alexander, Goldie and Stephen are all trumpeting the fact that Sir Ken will get complete freedom over his findings – although independence has been ruled out as an option. But if his findings conflict with the divergent party policies of the three Unionist parties, as surely they must in some form, it will lead to difficulties.

Already the cracks are appearing. The Lib Dems suggest that the report's findings should be accepted and turned wholesale into an amendment to the Scotland Act, and voted on at Westminster. The Tories, however, reserve the right to pick and choose, and add that there might not be any need for legislation. Meanwhile, Labour are split.

"Wendy's plan is a great tactic, but there's no strategy," one Labour insider complained. Her critics argue that she has only dreamt up the Commission as a way of heading off the Nationalists, without thinking how to deal with it once its findings come back. "And all this will come just as we're about to face a general election," said a Scottish Labour MP. "Thanks Wendy." A major internal row over what changes should be backed is widely expected – one that could easily cost Alexander her job. And none of the parties have yet said whether they believe their findings should also be put to a referendum.

There are also senior Labour figures who believe Alexander's preoccupation with the constitution plays into the SNP's hands. Former Westminster minister Brian Wilson questions why Scottish Labour is expending so much energy on examining the relationship between Edinburgh and London. His view is that Labour can only improve its fortunes in Scotland by establishing its credentials as a party of social justice and economic competence.

Over on the Nationalist side, there are fewer worries. They will allow their conversation to run on, hoping to pick up on issues as they arise that show up the shortfalls in the current devolution settlement. Thus far, issues such as broadcasting, farming and whisky taxes have come to the fore. SNP sources suggest that the conversation will finally come to an end in either the autumn of 2009 or early 2010, when the party will finally publish its Referendum Bill in the Scottish Parliament.

At present, the votes do not stack up for the SNP, suggesting that it will fail to get Holyrood's approval for a referendum. But Salmond's team is not unduly worried. "Either way we win," said one senior aide. "Either we get a referendum or it gets blocked, which becomes a very powerful weapon for us to use in the 2011 election."



It seems that despite Salmond's controversial admission over the possible use of STV in a future referendum, the SNP will be happiest with the way things are going. And that is why the calls are growing from the First Minister's opponents to "shoot the Nationalist fox" by holding a referendum now.



This view has been passionately put forward by Richard Cook, the vice-chair of the Tories. He revealed last year that he wanted to hold a referendum on the Union, and claims he has now won growing support. "I have support from across the political and business community," he said. "I think the people of Scotland are clever enough to make the right choice.

"Basically, whether we like it or not, the SNP is going to call this referendum. My argument is that it is better to have it at a time of our choosing, rather than wait for them to bring it forward. The time to have it is right now."

At the Scottish Labour conference in Aviemore this weekend, there are many who share his view. "If you ask around here, you'll find that most people would go for it," said one councillor. Wilson's assertion that a referendum now is better than months of debate is backed by MEP David Martin. Former MSP Allan Wilson has also argued that the party should not wait for Salmond to pick his moment. So why do they appear to be doing just that?

"The problem is the Lisbon treaty," said one Minister. Brown has spent the last two months at Westminster resisting Conservative demands for a referendum on the European treaty. How could he argue that Scotland should have a referendum on independence, while barring the rest of the UK from a referendum on Europe?

Consequently, it appears that – despite the plea by the influential Sir Tom Hunter today – Brown will remain unmoved. By waiting, however, he may be storing up further problems. The SNP is eagerly anticipating that, after the next general election, it might hold the balance of power, if current polling is correct. "We could demand a referendum as our price," one source said. Current polling also suggests that it will be David Cameron and not Gordon Brown who will be doing the negotiating. "Cameron is just as important as Brown in all of this," said one Tory source. "What he decides will be key."

So the odds are that, despite Sir Tom's plea, the debate between the politicians over the constitution will continue, and the public will have to wait. Political journalists in Scotland have long joked that the constitution has kept them in a job for the last 30 years. It seems there are at least a few years left before new employment might need to be found.