Unless there is a cabinet revolt, which seems unlikely, Alex Salmond plans to postpone the referendum bill until after the 2011 election because the unionist parties will vote it down. But the world's foremost expert on referenda says it is still possible to consult the people. In a piece for The Herald which was overlooked during the summer holidays, Dr Matt Qvortrup, explained it was not necessary for the SNP to get parliamentary approval for a plebiscite

Dr Qvortrup, author of A Comparative Study of Referendums: Government by the People said:

"The referendum can be held after a so-called Order in Council, or by a Scottish Statutory Instrument (SSI). That is to say, the First Minister can decide to simply use his executive powers to have a consultation.

He went on:

"The result would be only advisory. But that would be unimportant from a constitutional point of view. For, as constitutionalists know, all referendums in Britain have been advisory only. The fundamental legal fact in the British constitution is that parliament is sovereign and cannot legally be bound by a decision of the people. Politically, however, the situation is different. It would be exceptionally hard for a majority in parliament to reject the will of the people, as expressed in such a referendum."

Politically, such a move could put the Holyrood unionist opposition and the coalition Westminster government in a very tricky situation. If this consultative exercise included a devo max option alongside full independence, the outcome would certainly be a majority of Scots opting for radical change. That would put the SNP in a powerful position going into the 2011 election and, afterwards, if they formed a government. Whatever happened, the flawed Calman proposals would be holed below the water.

I am aware that this a sharp-intake-of-breath suggestion. The opposition could sink it with a no confidence vote. Would they dare? If they did, the issues at stake would be made very clear indeed. It should at least be examined.