ALEX Salmond is up against it this weekend at his party's national conference in Perth.

With the calendar flipping ever faster towards the independence vote, this has to be his Gladiator moment, the occasion when he comes into the arena looking like a 5:2 version of Russell Crowe, announces himself to be the commander of the armies of the north, and promises the troops they will have their victory, preferably in this life rather than the next.

Battling Alistair Darling on one side and a battalion of alarming Westminster-authored reports into Scottish independence on the other, fighting talk is in order. But what do you know: just as the SNP gathers in Perth, the gates to the arena have opened and out has stepped that snarling, drooling, pawing-the-air political beast known as Falkirk. Last time it mauled Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, and both the First Minister and the then Scottish Secretary could afford to sit back and enjoy another's political misfortune. Not this time, though.

According to one version of the story, it is Falkirk, and the botched selection of a parliamentary candidate for Westminster, that lies at the heart of the dispute at the Grangemouth refinery. Stephen Deans, one of two Unite members suspended by Labour over vote-rigging allegations and subsequently cleared, works at the plant. Ineos has conducted its own inquiry into the matter, which is expected to report soon. The union claims Mr Deans is being victimised. Having voted to strike, Unite called the action off, only for Ineos to announce the plant's temporary closure on Wednesday. The next D-for-decision day is Monday, when workers will have to accept or reject new terms thought to include a pay freeze and changes to pension arrangements.

Another take on the tale, the one being pushed hard by Ineos, is that this is a bigger-picture matter. Grangemouth is "financially distressed", the company says, and is losing £10m a month. Without action to halt the losses and improve the plant's efficiency the site has no future, Ineos argues. Unite disputes the figures, accusing the firm of using the current dispute as a ploy to cut pay and pensions and secure Government handouts.

Whichever side is to be believed - and fasten your seatbelts for some ferocious lobbying over the weekend - it is indisputably a right old mess. It is, further, a right old mess that cannot be ignored by either the Coalition Government or the Scottish Government. As Alistair Carmichael, the new Scottish Secretary, put it with some understatement, "be in no doubt that the stakes are exceptionally high here".

They certainly are high for the 2500 staff and contractors at the site, and the thousands more who benefit indirectly from its presence. They are high for the Scottish motorist, with 80% of Scotland's fuel processed at the plant. They are high in terms of the country's exports and Scotland's position in the energy and fuel market. Grangemouth is a crucial part of Scotland's industrial make-up, and any reduction in the plant's capacity, or the loss of it entirely, would be a catastrophic blow to the economy, both materially and psychologically.

What happens at Grangemouth matters deeply, and it will be illuminating to see the reaction of politicians on both sides of the independence debate. Will they hear a rallying call to arms, or run for cover? Since trade and industry, together with oil, coal, gas and electricity, are reserved matters, it should be Mr Carmichael and the Coalition Government rushing north. In reality, however, the public expects the Scottish Government to be on the front line on this one. For it not to do so will play to criticism that Grangemouth, like many another matter, is having to take second place to the push for independence.

His opening remarks to the conference in Perth yesterday suggested that the First Minister understands the significance of what is happening at Grangemouth. In the words of David Cameron, he "gets it", hence the promise to head straight back to Edinburgh to talk to the union and Ineos. It is a promising start, but one has cause to wonder where, if anywhere, his efforts will lead. Is there fire in the First Minister's belly for a fight other than the one for independence?

During its time in office the Scottish Government has been rather too fond of a quiet life. It has minded the shop, doing essential repairs - the NHS waiting times row - when required, but for the most part it has been content to steer clear of controversy. The blue skies talk, when there has been any, has been of Scotland's potential and the sunlit uplands of independence. With all the focus being on the future, present woes could always be blamed on Westminster and the status quo.

Grangemouth challenges that, not least because the dispute is happening right here, right now, and people expect the Scottish Government to have an opinion, either about the tactics of the unions or those of the employers. If government cannot make a difference in a matter of such national importance as Grangemouth, then voters can be forgiven for wondering what sort of chocolate fireguard administration they have elected.

But it would all be different if Scotland was independent, supporters of the Yes camp will argue. No more fighting with one hand tied behind the back then. Really? As Ineos director Tom Crotty put it yesterday: "We are in a global market here." Yes, that old one. The "global market" card has been played by many an employer since the financial crisis hit the fan in 2007-8. Under the flag of keeping their operations competitive and preserving jobs, firms have been allowed to redefine and redesign how they operate. Whether it be in their relations with staff or where they park their profits for tax purposes, employers have changed and challenged the rules to suit themselves. And if countries and governments don't like it, well, business can always pick up and go somewhere else.

Is Grangemouth to be allowed to be another example of a firm playing the global market card for its own ends, regardless of the long-term consequences for Scotland? And if it turns out the global market rules regardless, and there is nothing that can be done to protect pay, pensions and the future of the site, how can we be sure that it would be any different if Scotland were independent?

Since the mad old, bad old days of the 1970s, parties of all colours have been allergic to becoming involved in industrial disputes. With no dog in the fight, the reasoning goes, they won't be bitten in the posterior if things go wrong. Like three-day weeks and power cuts, that attitude is out of date and out of step with public opinion. Be it a trade union or a multinational behaving badly, the public is not afraid to take a side or a stand. The Scottish Government needs to do the same, lest we wonder if it has any fuel in the tank at all.