EDITORIAL

When the late Donald Dewar introduced the government bill that would lead to Holyrood, he pointed to the opening sentence that he had written himself. "There shall be a Scottish Parliament." Almost nine years on from the opening of the Scottish Parliament, and on the first anniversary of a nationalist-controlled administration in Edinburgh, even Dewar would have been surprised to learn what now looks certain.

"There shall now be a referendum" to decide if Scotland stays in or leaves the 300-year-old union of the UK. A week ago, despite the promise of a referendum being listed in the SNP's manifesto from a year ago, there were no guarantees this would take place. Alex Salmond's party did not have the votes to make it happen and Holyrood's pro-union parties had their constitutional focus elsewhere on the Calman Commission, a governmental ploy designed to put off any uncomfortable decision.

The intervention of Labour's leader in Holyrood, Wendy Alexander, and her backing for a referendum, is either a catastrophic piece of misjudgment, or it is one of those rare political errors which in retrospect brings an outcome that few regret. For hard-line unionist supporters, who initially feared devolution, the prospect of a close-run referendum is a nightmare scenario. For pro-devolution unionists, a referendum on a developing and fluid constitutional climate offers a clarity of direction that is absent. For the nationalists? Alexander has delivered them a decade's worth of Christmas presents. They are within touching distance of a dream no minority administration would expect to become reality.

Between now and the SNP's promised poll in 2010, after the last possible date for the next Westminster general election and the likelihood of the Conservatives returning to power after 13 years in opposition, Labour in Scotland has two options: it can do what Alexander said she wanted, namely back the poll. Or, it can withdraw its support and thwart the progress of any referendum bill put before the assembly. If it chooses the latter, Labour's credibility will be damaged further, and it will pay a heavy price when it next demands the support of the Scottish electorate.

The stakes are high for unionists and nationalists. So where is the electoral frenzy, the high-profile campaigning that has accompanied this sea-change policy by Alexander's party? If things appear calm and collected, it is an illusion. The reality in the new Scotland that arrived with Salmond as first minister a year ago, is that a full-blown and often heated debate on the constitutional framework of the UK has been with us for some time. A referendum would have had to come. Alexander's political inexperience has meant her timing on this issue could not have been worse for a Labour prime minister in London.

Tam Dalyell, who knew how to ask unanswerable questions, once remarked that devolution would lead to Scottish independence, and was only a halfway house in which the speed towards a split was decided. A referendum, where all sides offer their best arguments and their best strategies, may decide if Dalyell was right or wrong. But to have no question asked and to pretend constitutional silence is acceptable means no progress at all. Wendy Alexander last week made a mistake. But it is a mistake which could prove to have a positive effect on the future of Scotland.