As a compromise I would be willing to consider it if it gave the parliament more powers especially on raising and lowering taxation so that it had more responsibility for the economy as a whole. If we could replace the council tax with something fairer, if we could make strategic tax decisions e.g. make cases for investment knowing that the tax streams would bring more income.

If Devo-Max just became all the worst nonsenses of independence (500-odd government departments duplicated) with none of the actual advantages of independence the I don’t see many people voting for it.

My main concern is that the terms of a 2nd question will be set by supporters of independence rather than by anyone who actually wants Devo-Max. So it is likely to be Indy-minus.

Hidden in all these questions is the murky question of Oil revenues. With even SNP MSPs confusing – possibly deliberately – the difference between the value of oil reserves and the royalties that could be earned on them, there is much uncertainty. However despite all the visionary talk of a New and Fairer Scotland, etc, a lot of support for independence is from people who want the ‘oil money’

For those people it is not about better services or fairer Scotland it is about getting more for less. If Devo-Max is presented as a ‘best of both worlds’, you-get-to-stay-in-the-UK-but-keep-the-oil-money then it would have a superficial base attraction. Of course this is well outside the powers of a Scottish Parliament to deliver, especially if the people had overwhelmingly rejected independence so had no bargaining chip.

Apart from non-existent threats to the national institutions such as the football team, rugby team (if only…) and banknotes, there is not much on the horizon that looks like a game-changer. So a manufactured constitutional crisis is a reasonable option.

Of course the hard work would be to persuade people of the case for independence and have thought through the answers to basic questions like currency before calling a referendum.

The Yes campaign reminds me of Hibs before this year’s cup final: lots of celebrity endorsements, up against a dull establishment, knowing they are probably going to be hammered, but still going for it as they won’t have another chance for 10 years. Then losing 5-1.

One observation I would make is on the issue of Yes Scotland/SNP/Independence supporter naivety, vis-a-vis the breathtaking cynicism of Westminster/Unionist advocates. We have already seen evidence of this, with Iain Davidson’s unequivocal statement that Parliament in London feels it alone holds the right to grant further powers to the Scottish Parliament, and that it fiercely defends its supervisory right to any and all actions by Parliament in Edinburgh.

I wonder, though, what the Scottish electorate will make of that. One of Canon Kenyon Wright’s principle themes throughout the Devolution campaign in the 1980s and 1990s was on the principle of Scottish popular sovereignty, and the idea that the unlimited power of Westminster over Scotland was undesirable and needed correction. Since it was the Scottish Constitutional Convention (of which Iain Davidson was a member, ironically) that drafted the manifesto that became the Scotland Act, I would think that argument, that conception of sovereignty is embodied by the very existence of the Holyrood Parliament.

In keeping with your assertion (correct, I believe) that Scots are increasingly inclined towards Holyrood handling their affairs, I think the hardball tactics of Westminster will profoundly alienate many Scottish voters from the No cause. The SCC and Kenyon Wright also spoke a great deal about rejecting the old political culture of Westminster when fashioning their new Parliament, something that – in fits and starts – Holyrood has delivered on. I believe that aspect will prove to be crucial on the Devo-Max issue. Yes Scotland will point to Westminster bully-boy tactics and strike a chord with voters who find them profoundly distasteful.

“…I suspect that it’s more likely that they realised pretty quickly that their own YES launch hadn’t started very well…”

This makes no sense. There is only one Yes Scotland campaign and there was only one launch. Although, of necessity, the SNP had to be heavily involved in getting the organisation going, it was always intended that Yes Scotland would be run independently of the party.

I blame the media for the confusion. They persist in conflating Yes Scotland and the SNP for the simple reason that, as you note, politicians/parties are much easier targets for the kind of smear tactics which constitute the principal part of the anti-independence effort.