Michael Kelly: Searching question for Alex Salmond on independence

He's got all the credentials. He's young, so he has the time to build his reputation. He's intelligent and educated - a dentist by profession. But he also carries that great advantage - he is a member of a minority group.

Potential prime ministers looking to draw up balanced cabinets are keen to ensure that their governments reflect the many facets of our society. Sarwar, as a Muslim of Asian descent, is in. He is one of the next generation of immigrants born here, imbued in Scottish culture, with Scottish accents, who are making their mark across all sections of our society. The complaints voiced this week by Asians about their treatment at the hands of immigration officers at Glasgow Airport are more than balanced by the speed at which integration is going.

This week, Sarwar did something very bold for a Westminster MP. He wrote to Alex Salmond. This kind of direct contact is usually avoided by Labour MPs. For a start, they don't want to step on the toes of their Holyrood comrades. But they are also loath to give Salmond the status that such an exchange might suggest. After all, he is merely head of a devolved authority all of whose power derives ultimately from them. They are also all too aware of the harm that the withering fire of the First Minister's eloquence can inflict upon them.

So, young Sarwar was taking a risk in writing his letter, especially as it was on a subject that the First Minister wants devolved to no-one but himself - the vexed question of the independence referendum. Pointing to the arguments over the timing of this plebiscite and wording of the question or questions to be put, Sarwar suggests that these issues and all others surrounding the referendum be taken out of the hands of politicians and placed in the hands of an independent commission.

On the face of it, this is an unusual demand for a politician to make. Politicians, being the elected ones, normally jealously guard their rights to make decisions. It could easily be dismissed as undemocratic. Alex Salmond is certain to see it that way. He has already claimed that the result of May's election has made independence virtually inevitable and will point to the fact that his manifesto for that election promised a referendum.All this bravado is despite the fact that he never mentioned separation during that campaign and that the vote was one on his competence not his unique policy.

Salmond has also, of course, continuously and conveniently ignored the fact that he has no powers to make constitutional change (or even, arguably, the money to hold a vote on it) and that the referendum to have any binding force at all should be conducted by Westminster. Indeed, there is a strong argument that the whole of the UK should be consulted, as all four regions have an interest in the outcome. Abraham Lincoln was in no doubt that the decision to secede was not one that the rebel states were entitled to make by themselves. For that stance he is still hailed as a great democratic hero. Seems a sound example to follow, although taking it to war might seem a touch excessive.

But it will rightly remain a matter vigorously contested politically. Sarwar's argument - and it is one which is difficult to fault - is that the question of breaking up a peaceful, successful and civilised country must be taken above the pettiness of everyday party politics. That's where it is today. Alex Salmond's strategy is blatantly obvious. Give the Tory-led government enough time to become as unpopular as Thatcher was in Scotland while picking fights with Westminster to denigrate London government. He has even used the News International row to this end which, given the seriousness of the issues involved, is pretty small-minded.

Salmond sees his best chance of winning is to hold his vote against a background of manufactured short-term resentment. The risky, even dangerous, decision to consider a different and permanent constitutional position must be taken against a more sober backdrop than that. It may be that there are some in the SNP who regard independence as a heartfelt expression of patriotism; that the muted voice of nationhood demands a separate nation state. But that is not how the SNP has tried to sell the argument.

From the claim, "It's Scotland's Oil" to the discredited arc of prosperity, the pitch has always been an economic one. The SNP has never argued that freedom is its own reward. The logic of basing the independence argument on profit and loss is that Scots can only be asked for a decision once the balance sheet of separation is made available. That leads inexorably to two referenda, one on whether or not that deal should be explored and a second to endorse or otherwise its terms. That's one view. Maybe an independent commission wouldn't agree.

David Cameron is very conscious of the political tricks Salmond is up to and has warned that if he were to persist the UK government would take the decisions on the referendum out of Holyrood's hands. That would inject another rogue element, allowing the SNP a powerful argument that would hijack the vote, turning it into one about rejecting London interference.

So, an independent commission makes sense.Salmond has already proposed a new body to oversee the running of his referendum. It is a straightforward matter to expand the role of that body along the lines suggested by Sarwar. Its report would lead to an objective view on the timing of the referendum and the question or questions that would allow the matter to be determined coolly by the people of Scotland. If Salmond accepts this proposal, he sacrifices crucial influence on his pet project. If he rejects the suggestion, then he will be confirming his determination to skew the referendum process in his favour, casting doubt on the validity of any result favouring separation. Quite a neat trap set by a young politician with a successful career beckoning.