BRITAIN:The PM's position on Scottish independence in the context of Northern Ireland appears nothing short of inept, writes Frank Millar, London Editor
IS THIS how the union ends . . . in "a whimper of ineptitude" as Guardian columnist Peter Preston notes so simply? And could the cruellest of all ironies actually see Gordon "Mr Britishness" Brown preside over the dismantling of the United Kingdom?
The thought has been taking root for a while now that Brown's administration shows a troubling propensity to make a mess of things in Northern Ireland. This will come as a surprise to many readers given the British prime minister's reputed lack of interest in the North. But who would have believed he and Scottish Labour leader Wendy Alexander would have presided over a constitutional fiasco in their own backyard?
To date Brown's sins in respect of Northern Ireland have been of omission. Did an alarm bell not ring in Number 10 as they approved that Daily Telegraph article effectively excluding Northern Ireland while the prime minister celebrated the union of England and Scotland and, likewise, the capacity of the Welsh to also be British and proud of it?
There may, in fairness, be a benign disposition in the Brown camp not to in any way upset the historic Blair settlement. Sensitivity, however, is no excuse for seeming ignorance.
The Belfast Agreement recognises the right of people in Northern Ireland to define themselves as Irish or British. Yet the agreement also confirms Northern Ireland's position as part of the United Kingdom until and unless a majority there decides otherwise.
The peace does not rest on constitutional ambiguity. It was cemented by, among other things, the withdrawal of the Republic's territorial claim and the refusal of the Blair government to be "a persuader" for Irish unity.
True, adherence to the principle of consent does not make unionists of nationalists or republicans. But how are the British in Northern Ireland meant to interpret Brown when he appears to exclude them while rallying pro-union parties elsewhere to "expose the dangers of separatism"? Likewise, when it comes to secretary of state for justice Jack Straw and his latest proposals for "flag flying".
Nobody in his right mind would suggest Northern Ireland needs encouragement, or excuse, in this regard. And, in fairness, even the DUP shows little interest in revisiting the arrangements for flying the union flag put in place by former secretary of state Peter Mandelson.
The point is that exclusion jars when executed by a Labour government - wrapping itself in the flag as part of its quest for unifying "values" and a common sense of Britishness. It also unnecessarily risks reviving or encouraging the sense of unionist alienation, especially given the existence of protocols intended to prevent problems arising between the devolved institutions and the Westminster government.
Peter Robinson's new DUP leadership might have thought to avoid such potential pitfalls by pressing London to make better use of the protocols and consultation procedures in future.
However, it is more likely that Robinson's sense of apprehension - like that of Conservative leader David Cameron and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg - will have grown as a result of the evident breakdown in communications between Mr Brown and his own party leader in Scotland, Alexander.
She decided last week to call the Scottish National Party's (SNP) "bluff" by pressing for a referendum on independence earlier than the 2010 date proposed by first minister Alex Salmond.
The clever Salmond wants to delay both to establish the competence of his minority "government" and in anticipation that the possible election of a Conservative government in London will further fuel nationalist sentiment.
The Scottish Labour leader calculates the pro-union parties in coalition can wrong-foot Salmond, end the "uncertainty" they claim results from his "national conversation", and provide the essential context for further improvements to Scotland's devolved government by closing down the constitutional issue for a generation.
The first problem was that Alexander didn't agree the strategy with the prime minister, who in turn misrepresented her position when challenged by Tory leader David Cameron.
Secondly, while some Scottish tories flirted with the same idea a year ago after Salmond's election win by a one-seat margin, the nationalists (like Alexander's pro-union allies) have been quick to scent a panicked response to Labour's disastrous local election results and growing doubts concerning Brown's prospects of winning a fourth Labour term.
On that basis a Conservative party leader might be tempted to leave Labour to a mess of its own making.
The prime minister says he is not yet persuaded of the argument for a referendum, while in reality it would seem that, if the Scottish Labour leader can remain in her post, the only question is when it will be scheduled.
However, if time is Salmond's friend and Brown's enemy, Cameron would be wrong to think it is on his side too.
A Conservative government elected on English votes will carry little authority in Scotland. Moreover, if he genuinely cares about maintaining the union, it is arguably in Cameron's interest - if at all possible - to have "The Scottish Question" settled on Labour's watch.
Brown's difficulty here is not Cameron's opportunity.