It was an interesting juxtaposition of interview in the Guardian newspaper last week; chief inquisitor, Jeremy Paxman, pushing his book on building empires and chief political protagonist, Alex Salmond, pushing his brief on independence.

Why not just cut out the middle men and put Paxman and Salmond head-to-head and print the bloody mess?

The last time the belligerent Newsnight presenter interviewed the First Minister following the SNP’s landslide win in May, Salmond managed to best the best by replying politely to some rabid prodding, “if you just allow me to finish before you patronise me, Jeremy”.

And yet this was just a sign of a tone to come. Never mind that the SNP had done the unimaginable and managed to gain a majority in the Scottish Parliament – an institution designed to prevent this from happening – but instead of hearty congratulations, Salmond was treated to an onslaught of accusations, principally from the opposition parties and the media about his right to drive his party’s aims forward.

His deputy, Nicola Sturgeon, eventually snapped and told Holyrood in an interview that there were only so many times that she could apologise for her party winning.

It was a fair point. Why should the SNP always be asked to defend its position given its mandate? And it is this that has been generating a lot of heat from the First Minister, not least because the SNP has become a topic of some discussion at the recent party conferences south of the border. At all the party shindigs there were numerous speeches with references made to the SNP and while Ed Miliband may purposefully have not mentioned Salmond by name, his presence was still heavily felt. Both Nick Clegg and Michael Moore promised the Lib Dem party faithful that their UK ministers would be making increased forays to Scotland in the run-up to any referendum and Moore went as far as making an impassioned plea for members not to defect to the SNP. A point made all the more poignant by the fact that there were so few Scottish Lib Dems present and no public mention of the near wipe out for the party in the Scottish elections. Two weeks ago at the Tory conference, the Prime Minister goaded Salmond for not having his independence referendum now, calling the First Minister a ‘big feartie’. And just last week, Miliband unveiled his secret weapon in the fight against independence; his so-called Team Scotland, headed by new shadow secretary of state for Scotland, the former MSP and now MP Margaret Curran. She has reportedly already been in touch with the Holyrood press lobby to say she will be making her presence felt.

Another Labour insider was quoted as saying the party’s tanks were now parked on Salmond’s lawn.

Salmond himself appears to be neither up nor down by the attention or the fact that it is his party and that win that has put the debate about Scotland’s future at the very heart of UK politics. Indeed, he appears to regard it as almost an impertinence that the others are now playing catch up and posturing about his political aims and ambitions.

In the Guardian interview last week, he dismissed the Prime Minister as a political irrelevance in Scotland, said Danny Alexander was a Tory mouthpiece and expressed the belief that the Conservative and Liberal Coalition had not yet come to terms with the fact that it had no mandate to run Scotland. Salmond does not seem impressed with the idea that it is best to be being talked about than ignored.

The First Minister and I sit down on the day that the newspapers are splashing on the news that the Scottish Affairs Select Committee at Westminster is to hold two inquiries into the independence referendum.

Principally, the first is to examine the costs of Scotland leaving the UK and will focus on the mechanics and process of the vote and the second inquiry will attempt to resolve some of the more opaque questions such as what the consequences on defence, currency and Treasury functions would be if Scotland did become independent.

Ian Davidson, the Labour MP for Glasgow South West, the committee’s bullish chair and a man who earlier this year had to apologise after he accused the SNP of acting like neo-fascists, has said that the purpose of the inquiries is to help give the Scottish people the facts. The SNP has branded the move as a ‘sideshow’. Salmond tells me that he basically dismisses it as not relevant and also suggests that the committee would be best paying some time calculating how much the financial consequences of the Scotland Bill for Scotland.

There is no disguising the fact that this is Westminster playing constitutional catch up and trying to force the SNP’s hand to name the day and detail the question(s) that will be in a referendum. Fine as a tactic but it won’t wash with a First Minister who won’t take lessons on campaign strategy from down south.

“For Ian Davidson, the Tories, but more particularly the Labour members on the Scottish Select Committee, we have usurped what they think is a natural political order and you only need to look at the language Ian Davidson has used about the SNP, for which he has had to apologise, to see what he thinks about us but as far as I am concerned, it doesn’t matter; they don’t matter, these days are over and they just haven’t caught up. I am afraid the Scottish Affairs Select Committee has, in those famous words, lost an empire and is yet to find a role.

“[It] used to have a job scrutinising the Scottish Office and the Scottish Office isn’t there anymore. The Scotland Office doesn’t have anything to do and famously, the current Secretary of State for Scotland [Michael Moore] used to think, before of course he was the Scottish Secretary, that the role should be abolished. So the Scottish Affairs Select Committee doesn’t have a job to do and the way they are going about their business is basically an open statement that they refuse to recognise the world has changed, that there has been an election and that result has changed the entire environment they operate in. But you know, it doesn’t matter anymore what the Scottish Affairs Select Committee does or wants to do, none of that matters – these days are gone. Obviously, there will be a committee inquiry into a referendum and how we stage the referendum and the way we hold it but that will be done by the Scottish Parliament committees and in the proper democratic manner.

“There is no one on the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, apart from Eilidh Whiteford [SNP MP for Banff and Buchan] that has a mandate to say anything about a referendum, apart from the fact that they are opposed to it. The only ones with a mandate to say or do anything are the ones sitting in the Scottish Parliament.” But surely it is perfectly legitimate to ask exactly what independence would look like and what people would be voting for?

“Of course they are perfectly legitimate questions about independence and the 30 pages that have already been published in our white paper [Your Scotland, Your Voice] which was produced in 2009 for a referendum we had hoped to have at a different timescale answers them. There will be further similar documents produced for the planned referendum but in a proper timescale and the timescale was set out in the election campaign and Margaret Curran and Ian Davidson, who campaigned against a referendum and now having lost an election and lost the argument, they should accept the democratic result but yes, all these questions were put forward in the white paper already published and clearly that material will be framed in the referendum to be held and that time is not now.” I push on and say that people do seem to remain confused about what exactly he means by independence.

“I would have thought that the white paper was eminently clear and ‘Your Scotland, Your Voice’ is an excellent document.

“Independence is understood in the European continent and there are plenty of role models for independence there and it is not a theoretical concept, there are almost 200 independent countries in the world and 30 in the EU. I don’t understand the problem.

“Our sovereignty, our independence would be the same as Denmark or Sweden or Finland or any other country in the EU, large or small.” Has his view of independence changed over the years?

“Yes, of course it has as the world has changed.

All my adult life I have believed in independence for Scotland and I believe independence is about equality and Scotland is a valid European nation and should be on a same equal status with other nations. Just as I believe the Scottish courts should be on equal status with other courts and that Scotland should have equality of status.

Independence is about equality and I believe, have to believe, that you can’t consistently argue for equality within Scotland if you don’t argue for equality for Scotland. Equally I think it is difficult to believe in equality for Scotland if you don’t believe in equality within it.” So to be clear, could that mean that independence could mean an equality of the devolved nations within an umbrella of the UK?

“Look, Mandy, I sit on the British Irish Council and on that council at the present time – and where there is parity of esteem between the bits – there are three devolved countries, two sovereign states and three island groups.

Would it be a huge difficulty or change in configuration if it was three sovereign countries, two devolved areas and three island groups? And once you have established your sovereignty then you have the right to choose what policies you would share in the same way as some European countries choose to pool their sovereignty over certain areas but not in others but the key thing is do you have the right to choose?” Does he not believe in separatism?

“No one in the SNP in my entire experience has uttered the word ‘separatism’. The separatism is a pejorative term used in the 1970s to describe independence and there are few if any countries in the world would recognise a translation of that.

Independence is a universally accepted term and very meaningful to other countries. Yes, others do use it to scare people but it hasn’t worked and the Scottish Affairs Select Committee actually use it in their terms of reference but as I say, all that does is add grist to the mill.” Alright, what would our defence look like?

“Well, the second thing after your sovereignty is what policy do you want to accept within that independence and that will be up to the government of the day. You ask me what the policy of the UK is for defence and I could tell you the policy of this one is the same as the last one. As far as I am concerned, independence gives you the right to choose. As far as defence is concerned, it would be the right to choose, for instance, if the Parliament so wished, to remove nuclear weapons from Scottish waters and Scottish soil, it would be the right to choose. Is it theoretically possible that an independent Scottish Government would say: ‘no, no, you could keep your nuclear weapons in Scotland’. Yes, it is theoretically possible but it wouldn’t be what this government would do.

The SNP would seek to have them removed at a convenient time and as quickly as possible.” Salmond knows that despite his majority in the Scottish Parliament, it does not necessarily reflect an increased appetite for independence per se although a Scottish Social Attitudes survey published recently revealed a growing thirst for more powers for the Scottish Parliament.

Salmond sees this as a positive move on a continuum towards independence.

“Many people, myself included, believe that Margaret Thatcher and her government was successful in politicising the self-government cause. The very people that thought that a Scottish Parliament was a good idea but not very high on their list of priorities were persuaded of it by Margaret Thatcher’s government because of her tendency to interfere in Scottish domestic affairs to the nth degree up to and including poll tax. So instead of it just being a constitutional idea – a pleasant but not essential idea – to have a Scottish Parliament, it became an essential tool for many in order to allow Scotland to develop its own range of domestic policies or to put it in simple terms, so a poll tax would never be foisted upon Scotland by a Tory government with no mandate in Scotland, ever again.

“I think to an extent, just as she politicised the case for devolution, recent events over the last ten years have politicised the case for independence and there are many people just like those that once believed that devolution was a good idea but not a priority now think independence is a good idea but not high on their list of priorities. However, if you have a circumstance like you get taken into an illegal war against your will and your troops are sent to fight and die in Iraq against the overwhelming will of the Scottish people and based on a fraudulent deception then that rather illustrates why you should be able to choose whether to take part in those conflicts. That is only the choice of an independent country.

And if a country decides in the midst of the current financial crisis that it is a fantastically sensible idea in spending £100bn over the next generation in having another set of nuclear weapons that everyone knows are redundant in strategic terms then it is quite legitimate that Scots say this is the choice we should make rather than have it made for us.

“In the way Margaret Thatcher politicised the case for devolution then to a great extent, the case for independence is being politicised by first, Tony Blair and now, David Cameron in the way that they are imposing things on us.

Independence is the right to choose how you do these things.

“Could you have choices over economic policy that would be short of independence? Of course you could but people who don’t understand the difference between devolution as we have just now and fiscal autonomy or responsibility as proposed by some people and independence as proposed by me should probably reread the white paper.

“We will produce further documents, taking into account the world we are now in but why would we produce it now? When we do produce it then it will be quite legitimate for Parliament to enquire into it but the Parliament that will have the legitimacy to enquire will be here and will be the Scottish Parliament. The fact that the Scottish Affairs Select Committee hasn’t got to that point is incredible. Although I may shake my head and say, ‘dear, dear’ but in terms of the politicising of the issue, I can see no greater advocate for independence than the combination of Ian Davidson and David Cameron.

“But here is some advice for the Labour Party, and I am not quite sure why I would share this with them, if you want to win an election in Scotland in 2011, in 2016, in 2021 or even in an independent Scotland, you have to convince the people in Scotland that you have understood the basic thing that they want decisions made by people that care about them the most. They don’t want decisions to be made in a Westminster Parliament, in a Westminster committee, or the Scottish Affairs Select Committee or on the floor of the House of Commons; they want decisions to be made by their own elected representatives, elected by the Scottish people with a balanced representation of the Scottish people. That is the beginning of political wisdom and until the Labour Party gets through that psychological barrier then they will fail. Ian Davidson is apparently floating the idea that he could run as the deputy leader of the Labour Party in Scotland but he is not someone that would say he would stand for the Scottish Parliament in 2016 and the same would apply to Mr Sarwar, so they would be able to tell whoever is left in their party here what to do. These days are over and they need to catch up.” It seems there has never been a calm moment to interview Alex Salmond since May because almost every day brings a new reason for him to get aerated. And today is no exception. No one needs to be reminded of the last interview we did in June when his ire at the actions of the Supreme Court in terms of human rights legislation led to both him and this magazine being threatened with legal action.

Ironically, the judgements of the Supreme Court are back in the news as we sit down for a rerun. This time, however, he is happy with its ruling that the Scottish Government’s decisions regarding pleural plaques should be upheld.

However, the newspapers are filled with mealy-mouthed accusations of double standards from the Scottish Government; happy when a judgement goes in their favour and angry when it does not. To be fair, Salmond is more exasperated than annoyed. It is what he has come to expect.

“I think our attitude is perfectly consistent in that we are trying to uphold the independence and integrity of Scots law and there are differences of course between civil and criminal actions but the point of consistency is clear. And with pleural plaques, the Scottish Government’s decision was upheld unanimously in the Court of Session so obviously, if the Supreme Court upholds the Court of Session and the Scottish Parliament then the view that you would expect is for us to support and welcome it. You would be surprised if we attacked it. The difficulty with the issue for us is when the Supreme Court second guesses, particularly in criminal cases, the Scottish judiciary and then that is entirely wrong. Scottish criminal law should never be compromised and we asked our distinguished panel to find a solution within the current constitutional set up and Lord McCluskey has done that and hopefully, everyone will support it. He has come up with something that should improve the situation and puts the Scottish courts in a position of parity with the courts of England as far as criminal appeals are concerned and why would that not be acceptable?

“Lord McCluskey suggested two critical changes; one on the leave to appeal and one on points of human rights law north of the border that will not just allow, as I described it, for the cell doors to be swung open but will allow the courts of Scotland to judge but look for clarity on human rights law and that is the kernel of Lord McCluskey’s recommendations, both of which are clarifications and protections from the situation we were in and is something that everyone should support. Who could seriously or openly argue that you should not have parity of esteem between the Scottish and English courts and why do some people find that difficult to comprehend? I think they know fine that’s the argument but they don’t want to confirm that because they know overwhelmingly that if that question were asked of the people; the judges certainly and the prosecution authorities and the police, but mostly the people of Scotland, they would say ‘yes, that is how it should be’. I would hope now that the McCluskey proposals would be given a fair wind.” Salmond argues that the basis of these disputes is parity of position of equality which neatly leads us to another current hot topic, that of equal marriage.

Some reports have suggested that the recently launched Scottish Government consultation into equalising marriage laws to allow same-sex couples to marry, closing a loophole in the civil partnership legislation which gave gay couples legal protection but did not allow for couples to get married in a religious ceremony or indeed call their partnership ‘a marriage’, could split the party.

SNP MSPs John Mason and Bill Walker have already been criticised for being vocal about the issue and last week, former leader of the SNP, Gordon Wilson, added his weight to the arguments against. Salmond has previously said he is in favour of the proposed legislation.

“I believe Scotland is capable of having a sensible debate about this. I would suggest in some ways that Scotland has grown up a lot quicker than some of the journalists and the way that they report on these matters.

“I have not changed my mind. I made my position clear during the election campaign but there is now, quite rightly, a consultation period and that debate is something that is, by the way, going on elsewhere so we are not alone. Indeed, the Prime Minister talked about it in the middle of his conference speech so there does not seem to be much dividing the political parties on this but you do need to allow a public debate to go on and you can’t just dictate to people because it is their right to hold their own religion or conscience views on this and there will be people within, for instance, the Catholic Church, who disagree with this on religious grounds and there are fears that people who hold these views would be forced into conducting ceremonies that they don’t agree with. People have to have confidence that this proposal is being debated on its merits and that you don’t just impose on people’s religious views as long as those too are compatible with law. But I am confident that Scotland can have a sensible, informed debate about this. I don’t think that John Mason and I would have the same views on this but neither do I think this is an issue that will tear the SNP apart, as has been reported by some newspapers.

I think, in some way, the media is disappointed that the SNP isn’t tearing itself apart over this but I honestly believe that people in Scotland will express their point of view and we will come to a proper and balanced conclusion that has at its heart the notion that people have equality and esteem and that individual conviction can still be protected. This is a debate that many other countries are having so we are no different and it is good for the country to be having that openly.” Some quarters have been upset by the fact that Salmond met with Rt Rev Philip Tartaglia, the Bishop of Paisley, at Bute House recently and appeared to be having a conversation that linked the Catholic Church’s opposition to the same-sex marriage legislation with its support or otherwise of the proposed anti-sectarianism developments. Salmond is as clear about the sectarianism issue as he is about equal marriage.

“Of course Scotland has its own demons and same-sex marriage is not one of them but sectarianism and our relationship with alcohol are which is why we are committed to act. I think Scotland is the greatest country in God’s earth but that does not blind me to the fact that we have our failings.

“I think that we Scots have probably contributed more to humanity pound for pound, person for person, than anywhere else in the world but to recognise your worth, you must also confront your failings. I guess, I am a kind of ‘wha’s like us’ kind of guy when we do well and a ‘let’s do something about it’ kind of guy when we do something wrong. The reason we wanted to do something in terms of legislation around sectarianism quickly was to ensure that our legal framework caught up with our enforcement framework before the start of the new football season. The police are doing a fantastic job in dealing with this problem at football matches and in bringing us back from the very brink and I understand that eradicating sectarianism from football is not the same as eradicating it from the whole of society but it is one of the most visible manifestations of the problem and it is a start.

“Saying it is not enough is not a reason for not tackling it. Football is a clear and present danger in this and it would be a failing of government to not do it. I think Labour will look back on their behaviour towards this in the same way as they reacted to minimum pricing.

It’s like a trumpet sounds for them when we propose something and basically, they just have to oppose it because it’s come from the SNP.

Labour has become a party that defines itself against what the SNP do. The Labour Party has lost socialism and doesn’t have any ideology, apart from opposing the SNP.” This seems a good point to ask him about leadership and how he views the four Tory contenders.

“In the same way as when I did some racing commentary, I would never burden a horse by my selection, I won’t burden any of the Tory leadership contenders with my selection,” he laughs.

What of Willie Rennie?

“I have been a party leader of just three MPs within a House of Commons of 650 members and I used to have to jump up and down a lot to get my voice heard and get some attention but it was always jumping up and down with a purpose and a logic. Willie Rennie is now a leader among five within a parliament of 129 and even though the Scottish Parliament is much more amenable to minorities than Westminster, he is doing a lot of jumping up and down but I am not quite sure what the purpose or logic is.

“The Liberals were the party of home rule for 100 years and with Joe Grimond they then became the centre-left party and the anti-Tory party for 50 years but they have jettisoned home rule and jettisoned being the anti-Tory party and the result is just deep trouble, so much so that Michael Moore’s rallying call at the Lib- Dem conference was simply ‘don’t defect to the SNP’. And given what we are reading today about the consequences of boundary changes, if I was Danny Alexander, I would be offering Charles Kennedy a seat in the House of Lords or a seat anywhere because there is no way Danny Alexander would ever win a seat against Charles Kennedy and that is what is wrong with Danny Alexander, he probably doesn’t even see that.

“But look, Mandy, my preoccupation is not about other parties and what they are saying about me or the SNP, it is about the economy and I spend every waking hour thinking of ways to get out of the looming recession. I think it is alarming the lack of focus from the other parties. The Coalition is dysfunctional about the economy and when you look at the key areas of capital investment, bank financing and consumer confidence, you just see government departments almost acting in opposition to each other – completely dysfunctional. It is frustrating for me and my answer is ‘give us the tools to do the job’. There is one very big company who made a major investment in Scotland recently and the managing director said to me that they had come to Scotland simply because we were the only ones with an industrial strategy.” Increasing the price of booze, stopping football fans from sectarian chanting and putting gay couples on the same marital footing as everyone else, is probably not what most Nationalists would cite as their raison d’être. So as Salmond prepares to address his party faithful this week, what will he say to a party that has travelled so far in such a short space of time?

“My message to conference will be keep your eye on independence because it is closer than it has ever been and continue to build on the work we are doing to create a bett
er future for Scotland.”