gusmac wrote:
This may be how it seems but Salmond wants independence, don't ever doubt that.
He supported devolution as a stepping stone to where he wanted to be, while the unionists hoped it would end the clamour for independence.
The piecemeal approach has suited him before and would do so again. Salmond realises that 300 years of conditioning isn't easy to overcome.
There will be a referendum, this much is sure. He'd be finished if he doesn't hold one.
As to the contents, it will be as much as he thinks he can sell to the Scottish electorate.
One giant leap or a hundred small steps, his destination is still the same.
Yes, I would certainly agree that he would take independence if it was on offer, but the problem is self-evidently that it isn't at present, thus the delay in the referendum.
However, to the extent that if even a couple of years down the line he knew that it was unwinnable then he might prefer not to have one?
After all, it might be preferable for his legacy to
not hold a referendum rather than
lose one.
Of course, it all depends on the circumstances.
For example, one theory I read about was that the SNP know full well that a legal challenge to the Scottish Government's power to hold a referendum is likely, and this would hold up things for months, possibly years, thus possibly till after the next Scottish Parliament elections.
But they're doing nothing to head this off because in effect the scenario would allow them to ditch the referendum and Salmond could shift the blame for this elsewhere, thus preserving his legacy without holding a referendum.
