So this morning Nicola Sturgeon has announced she will put in hand the legislation required to start the process for a 2nd Independence referendum, to take place between the end of 2018 and spring 2019.
I think this announcement reveals Ms Sturgeon to be a gambler. It seems to me the act of someone in a weak position who has played her strongest card early, knowing that the longer the game goes on the smaller the chance she has of winning. It also confirms that, far from being the clever politician of popular wisdom, she is impulsive and prone to fits of pique.
The SNP doesn't like Brexit much, and Scotland voted by a significant majority to Remain. In the immediate aftermath of the Leave victory Ms Sturgeon made a number of remarks which gave her supporters to understand that this was a game-changing event which would inevitably lead to Indyref2.
This was a mistake, because it left her with so little room for manouevre. It forced her subsequent management of events into choice between backing down, thus infuriating her own supporters, or following through with a process which she cannot be remotely sure will result in success. The tone of her announcement, and the way she handled the press afterwards, suggest decisions made in genuine anger. Really clever politicians don't do things in anger.
Having been forced by Brexit and by her own rhetoric into putting the Indyref2 process into motion, Sturgeon has decided to go early rather than wait for events. She knows she cannot afford to have the referendum after Brexit, because, faced with a choice between ceding sovereignty to Brussels and being in the Union, Scots may well think that remaining in the UK looks the more attractive option. Moreover, the longer she waits, the more her party's record in government will be scrutinised.
It's actually quite hard at the moment to work out what the SNP's policy on Europe is. Mrs Sturgeon left this tantalisingly blank in her announcement today. Are they in favour of EFTA membership? Or of being in the EEA, keeping the pound in both options (with all the disadvantages that entails, including the absence of a central bank)? Or they in favour of joining the EU, which would almost certainly mean adopting the Euro (that did after all used to be SNP policy)? Sturgeon has conspicuously failed to be specific on this, but she'll have to commit herself long before any referendum.
Being in the EU means losing the rebate and swallowing the Euro. It may mean tariffs and a hard border. Remaining in the UK means maintaining the Barnett formula, and retaining tariff-free access to Scotland's biggest export market. Scots may well wonder why they should leave a Union which has served them well for three hundred years in favour of one which is widely perceived, even by its supporters, as undemocratic, bureaucratic and corrupt. It is bizarre that Mrs Sturgeon should be so upset about "leaving the EU single market" when as part of the UK Scotland is already part of a single market which is significantly bigger.
So the fact that Sturgeon has gone for the quick contest tells us a good deal about what she considers to be the nature of the battlefield.
A further point. Ms Sturgeon herself does not have the right to call a referendum. She has to pass legislation at Holyrood (something which will require the support of the Greens), and then ask Westminster. Mrs May has little option but to accede to such a request, but she can decide the timing of the referendum. She should play hard-ball. She can say, "Yes, you can have a referendum. But not till after Brexit." Sturgeon would huff and puff, but May's position would be perfectly defensible. She can point out that it is unreasonable to expect Scots to make an informed decision when they don't know the nature of Brexit. As it happens I expect that we won't have a signed Brexit deal within two years from now, but there's absolutely no reason why May should allow a referendum until a deal is signed.
If I were Mrs May I'd point out that I am Prime Minister of the whole of the UK, including Scotland, and that Mrs Sturgeon is merely the woman elected to run 10% of it. I'd say that I'm negotiating the UK's decision to leave the EU, and that I certainly don't intend to jeopardise the UK's chances of getting a good deal by allowing myself to be distracted from the job in hand by the SNP's desire for independence.
Sturgeon could of course defy Westminster, and have a referendum anyway. The No faction should then call for a boycott. An unlawful referendum would have no legal or moral status.
