THE LEADER of the Scottish National Party sat in his Westminster office savouring the prospect of electoral battle. Savouring, too, the prospect of ultimately abandoning the House of Commons in exchange for what he hopes will be his eventual role as First Minister in the Scottish parliament and, beyond that, as leader of an independent Scotland.
Such speculations are no longer the terrain of the political dreamer. And Alex Salmond, widely regarded as one of the most talented and charismatic politicians in Britain, is certainly no dreamer.
The smart money still says the prize will be Donald Dewar's when the votes are counted on the night of May 6th. But if devolution is "a process" rather than "an event", then the present MP for Banff and Buchan is going to be at the heart of it. Few smart observers would place their money against either possibility, an outright SNP majority in the Edinburgh parliament, or Scottish independence further down the line.
To the undoubted irritation of British ministers, and to the (mild) embarrassment of the Taoiseach and Irish diplomats in Britain, Mr Salmond repeatedly points to Ireland as an example of the potential for a small independent nation in Europe. Should he find himself in government, he has thoughts-aplenty, too, about the potential role of the emerging British-Irish Council in redefining the political landscape of these islands.
On the Belfast Agreement itself (whether on decommissioning or the question of prisoner releases) the SNP leader refuses all invitations to meddle.
For supporters in the grandstand, cheering on the game, he says it is not for people like himself to be "on the field dribbling in one direction or another". So determined is he, he won't even be tempted to venture how or where he thinks the game might end up.
Asked if he thinks the process is taking the North into a united Ireland, he says the crucial point is that the people of Northern Ireland have the right to self-determination: "You couldn't have a united Ireland without consent."
The absolute criteria, from the Scottish perspective, is that "people must pursue their arguments in a totally peaceful and constitutional manner". This in turn leads to a plainly heartfelt broadside at Tony Blair. He notes that "not a single person has lost their life this century arguing for or against Scottish independence". And, accusing Mr Blair of treating Scots, certainly those who believe in independence, with "arrogance and contempt" he says: "In the context of how the argument has been pursued in Scotland . . . not uniquely, but unusually across the world . . . in a totally constitutional and peaceful manner, I sometimes get irritated that there isn't the slightest flicker of recognition of that fact from him."
He advances absolutely no criticisms of Mr Blair's approach to the peace process. But he says his differing approach to the two issues reveals "the politician" in the Prime Minister: "I think it's political fear that dictates his arrogance and insensitivity towards Scotland, in comparison with a much more sensitive portrayal of Blair as a politician in Ireland."
I wonder if the essential difference is explained by the fact that, subject to consent, Mr Blair would be happy to see the North leave the United Kingdom. But, intriguingly, Alex Salmond counters: "In a strange way Blair seems less comfortable with that notion than John Major did. This may be the sort of `Nixon to China' syndrome . . . so a Conservative prime minister found it easier to say `This is a question that must be faced'. Blair seems more definitive as a unionist in some ways than Major did." Whatever about Northern Ireland, Mr Blair's position as Scottish unionist is unambiguous. And whatever the polls may tell him (that even a majority of Labour supporters think he should play no part in the campaign) the Prime Minister is leading his party's attempt to repel the nationalist assault, and secure the unity of his kingdom.
If victorious, the SNP would hold a referendum on independence within the four-year term of the Scottish parliament. And Mr Salmond confirms they would not enter any coalition arrangement unless able to deliver the referendum promise. But he denies this means his options lie between an outright majority and opposition, insisting that other potential partners in government could accommodate themselves to having the vote.
HE ALSO emphatically denies suggestions that he would be horrified to win, that his long-term strategy actually requires Labour to form the government with his party providing the opposition. He says this notion first surfaced in the Spectator last November: "It was rubbish in November. It is rubbish now. This is an exclusive for The Irish Times, Frank . . . The SNP are trying to win this election."
The SNP leader insists he can think of nothing more stupid in politics than running for second place. And he dismisses as equally daft the idea that his authority would be broken if, having won a mandate to form a government, he lost the subsequent referendum on independence.
In that event, he confirms, "you continue to govern, and you couldn't have another referendum until you had another mandate for one." This is the "Quebec factor" which Blair loyalists say could subject Scotland to years and years of constitutional uncertainty. That won't worry the nationalist leader, who maintains his party can run a devolved government and remain the party of Scotland.
Labour, of course, charges that the SNP has no policies for running a devolved government. But Mr Salmond notes the Prime Minister "spent 20 minutes attacking those non-existent policies" in Glasgow last Friday, and he himself was expanding on them yesterday in his big speech to the SNP conference in Aberdeen.
Mr Salmond cites Mr Blair's attitude to the Welsh leadership election and his determined efforts to block the ambitions of Ken Livingstone in London, as proof that his inclination will be to retain control post-devolution. And he quotes the fact that 90 per cent of Scottish revenue will remain within Westminster control to dismiss the suggestion that Scottish Labour, in government, might not prove so accommodating to Mr Blair.
Mr Blair, he argues, is about giving Scotland responsibility rather than power. But that said, he is "rather against picking boundary disputes with Westminster". The new parliament, he says, should get on with its job, while saying fairly and squarely to people "If you want us to do more, go further. That route is open, and the route is through a referendum." The SNP would also, of course, hold a referendum on the question of a continuing relationship between an independent Scotland and the monarchy. And the House of Windsor is reportedly preparing to accommodate itself to, and redefine its "unifying role" in, the devolved United Kingdom.
Mr Salmond dismisses suggestions of Princess Anne as "Queen of Scots" as so much "baloney", and says these manoeuvres will not be a critical matter in the election campaign.
However, "the question of Scotland as an independent state is quite different from the future of the monarchy in Scotland". And a perfectly acceptable way could be found to have continuity with the royal family which was amenable to the democratic instincts of the Scottish people.
In an independent Scotland, Queen Elizabeth or her successor would be a citizen of Scotland and "nobody would be a `subject' of anyone". That said, Mr Salmond believes the changed monarchy has a great deal to be said for it, not least the continuing "social union" which would continue between Scotland and England.
Ah, England. How, I wonder, are the English going to react to all of this? The putative leader of an independent Scotland has no wish to interfere, much less to patronise. But he says he has no doubt, were he an MP from an English region, that his immediate demand would be for the relocation of major government departments out of London.
Beyond that, he suggests: "A redefinition of English identity, stressing the huge qualities that are within the people of England, would be of great benefit to all concerned."
The SNP leader said as much in a lecture a week ago. He notes he was well reported in Scotland, and CNN coverage meant he was heard in Baghdad. But he got little mention in the English press.
That English redefinition has, indeed, been slow in coming. But as decision day approaches for the Scottish, and the Welsh, it can hardly be much longer delayed.