SO will it be war, or is there still a glimmer of hope for peace? Will Mr John Major's words be deemed to have closed down the options, or will Mr John Hume and Mr Gerry Adams find something still to play for?

Sane, rational people will continue to hope. Indeed the virtue of that condition is never more clear than when we contemplate the alternative. But last night's reactions from Mr Hume, and Sinn Fein's Mr Mitchel McLaughlin, suggest there is little left in this process but hope itself.

Two key facts. First, Sinn Fein's central demand has been rejected. Second, yesterday's was emphatically a "unilateral" British statement. Knowing its contents, and believing it would not achieve the intended result, Dublin pressed London not to publish.

The British government's promised restatement of its position was precisely that. Despite unionist suspicions, British officials for weeks now have insisted there was and could be nothing in Mr Major's discourse with Mr Hume at variance with settled policy. So it has proved to be. The Prime Minister's letter to the SDLP leader last weekend con firmed his rejection of the Hume/Adams proposals.

Specifically, Mr Major has rejected demands for a fixed, guaranteed point for Sinn Fein's entry into the talks process following the restoration of the ceasefire and the party's acceptance of the Mitchell principles.

True, yesterday's statement offers Sinn Fein entry into immediate bilateral talks with officials, to be followed swiftly by ministerial talks. But this is reminiscent of the "exploratory dialogue" which followed the first ceasefire.

Under statute the decision that Sinn Fein qualifies for admission to the process rests with the Secretary of State. And yesterday's statement repeated that "sufficient time would have to be taken" to ensure the requirements had been met.

The republicans would have to repose their trust in Sir Patrick Mayhew, something they have repeatedly said they will not do.

MR David Trimble, the Ulster Unionist leader, was quick to focus on one key requirement.

The proffered process "would follow the declaration by the IRA of an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire with the stated purpose of the conflict being permanently ended".

At a press briefing the Minister of State, Mr Michael Ancram, said they were not getting into word games second time around. But the official statement says the successful conclusion of the process "would depend on whether words, actions and all the circumstances were consistent with a lasting ceasefire."

Description would be one thing. But there would need to be practical evidence in support of the words used: "Whether or not any paramilitary activity, including surveillance, targeting and weapons preparation continued would also be directly relevant."

While the statement itself did not refer to them, Mr Major on television subsequently added an end to "punishment beatings" to the list of requirements. He has described the first ceasefire as "fake". Following its collapse, and in the light of intelligence, it seems, on one reading at least, that he will not be so ready to form a second "working assumption" about the IRA's intent.

After their recent meeting with Mr Major, leaders of the loyalist parties said the IRA operation, in all its manifestations, would have to "freeze in the water." And, again, time will be needed for Sir Patrick to judge deed against word before making his decision.

Even after receiving Mr Major's letter to Mr Hume last weekend, the Government continued to hope that time could be contrived over the Christmas break to meet the British requirement, without implying any form of "decontamination period", anathema to Sinn Fein.

And considerable attention was focused on one delphic sentence in the British statement "The talks are likely to break for Christmas soon and to resume in January at a date yet to be agreed."

Was this the get out clause? Could a pre Christmas ceasefire backed by evidence on the ground get Sinn Fein into talks by the end of January?

The Government will continue to explore the possibility. But the unilateral nature of yesterday's statement was not the "neutral presentation" Dublin sources believed necessary.

Moreover, there is the attendant, now overwhelming suspicion in nationalist circles that the "numbers game" at Westminster is the determining factor. Mr Hume was emphatic on this point last night.

Had Mr Major had a comfortable Commons majority, he charged, peace in Northern Ireland would by now be an accomplished fact.

It is hard to credit that Mr Hume could ever have imagined London would meet his terms. Mr Major's constant worry has been that Sinn Fein's arrival at the talks table would precipitate a collective unionist walkout.

The Prime Minister might wish to take risks for peace. But it is scarcely credible that he would feel comfortable with a scenario which propels Mr Trimble out, leaving Sir Patrick facing Mr Adams across the table. The Tory press, and sufficient of his backbenchers, would savage him.

British policy makers might not think it smart to destabilise a second Ulster Unionist leader in the lifetime of one parliament. Moreover, few can doubt the UUP would exact their revenge, ejecting Mr Major in an early confidence vote. And we can forget the fanciful notion that Mr Major might consider this a "price worth paying. He emphatically does not wish to face the country on the back of a Commons defeat.

ALL of which has encouraged the faint hope that Sinn Fein might buy into some alternative scenario. Senior Labour politicians certainly detect it in Mr Major's statement, a means of managing the political process on a bilateral basis during the interregnum caused by the imminent general election.

Given the reality that there will be no multi party talks until after that election, this seems the best that is on offer. It would afford Sinn Fein the opportunity to rebuild pan nationalism, and possibly improve on its electoral performance of last May.

Small beer, perhaps. But such is the stuff of democratic politics. And what of the alternative? Any resumption of violence now will be deemed to invalidate Sinn Fein's claims of commitment to peaceful means, and the claims made on their behalf by Mr Hume and the Government.

Rage as they might about the Westminster arithmetic, Dublin will never concede Mr Major's short comings as justification for a return to bullet and bomb. On that fundamental, at least, London and Dublin will be agreed that the ball remains primarily in Sinn Fein's court.