Salmond's long game

CONFOUNDING all punditry, Alex Salmond, Scotland's first minister, led his Scottish National Party (SNP) to a stunning victory in the devolved Parliament's elections on May 5th. The SNP gained 23 seats to hold 69 out of 129— the first overall majority since the Parliament was created in 1999, and a feat once thought to be impossible under its proportional voting system. Mr Salmond, however, is in no rush to leverage his popularity into a bid to break away from Britain. And the kind of independence he might eventually seek could be much less of a break-up than many now imagine.

The result is certainly catastrophic for his unionist opponents. All three leaders of the other main Scottish parties—the Conservatives' Annabel Goldie, Labour's Iain Gray and the Liberal Democrats' Tavish Scott—swiftly announced that they would quit. The Lib Dems, tainted by their Westminster coalition with the Tories, were reduced from 17 seats to just five. While Labour fared least badly in terms of overall votes, it lost constituencies once considered to be safe and ended up with 37 seats, down from 44. The Tories slipped from 20 to 15.

Was this a vote for leaving the union? Hardly. Neither independence nor the enhancements to devolution proposed in legislation currently wending its way through Westminster featured much in the campaign, which was dominated by public spending and the economy. Opinion surveys consistently suggested that support for independence was much lower than backing for the SNP (see chart).

Mr Salmond duly announced that he might delay the independence referendum his manifesto promised until as late as 2015. His immediate priority, he said, was to win further powers for the devolved institutions, particularly over corporation tax. He put his demands—also including early implementation of mooted borrowing powers, and devolving the collection of income from offshore renewable-energy schemes—to David Cameron. The prime minister is in a tricky position. Refusing the demands risks strengthening Mr Salmond's hand; concessions might suggest to Scottish electors that voting SNP pays dividends.

A devout unionist, Mr Cameron would be well-advised to regard this conundrum as the first skirmish in a long war with Mr Salmond over independence. He should also view current opinion polls as unreliable indicators of how Scots might eventually vote.

That is because the SNP has yet to define what it thinks independence would mean. Some matters, such as control over North Sea oil and gas revenues, are obvious; but other, equally important ones, such as whether an independent Scotland would merely share in the costs and command structures of the British armed forces, or have its own, are not. Mr Salmond is by instinct a gradualist, believing that Scottish sovereignty is most likely to be obtained bit by bit rather than in one go. He would probably prefer to pay for a share of some British functions, for example diplomacy and revenue collection, than instantly to set up separate ones.

James Mitchell of Strathclyde University has just completed a marathon set of interviews with SNP members. He says he was surprised by how relaxed both the leaders and members were about seeking “an ever-looser union” with Britain, rather than an abrupt severance. Mr Salmond's eventual vision of independence might look more like a big but comfortable extension of existing Scottish freedoms than the lonely, impoverished isolation his opponents depict. And as the election showed, he is not to be underestimated.