The polls have been consistent for years and it’s reasonable to conclude that the people have spoken. Yes, Devo Max is Scotland’s constitutional setup of choice.
The only problem is, the independence referendum does not provide for this option. We instead are faced with two extremes at either margin of our primary preference – full independence and the status quo.
So, in short, we know what we want, we just have to wait for our politicians to deliver it.
The perceived wisdom is that we must hang on for the seemingly inevitable No result in Autumn 2014 before hoping that David Cameron or Ed Miliband deign to reward us with further powers during the 2015 to 2020 Westminster term. This is to ignore a much quicker and democratic solution that is already within Scotland’s grasp. 
By dint of its majority victory in the 2011 Holyrood elections, the SNP ‘owns’ the referendum process and, by extension, owns how independence will come to be defined. This will be set out in the Scottish Parliament white paper later this year but, if the polls continue to show little sign of shifting, some serious thought must surely be given to making ‘independence’ as close to the popular Devo Max option in this white paper as possible.
The decision for Salmond, Sturgeon and Robertson is this –  gamble on, say, a 20% chance of winning full independence or effectively bank an 80% chance of gaining significantly more powers.
The difference between the two options may not even be so stark. As many unionist politicians are pointing out these days, there is no such thing as a truly independent country any more. Free trade agreements, defence treaties, the European Union, the United Nations…. Scotland will only ever be independent in an interdependent world. In the aftermath of a Yes victory, agreements would need to be signed with rUK on a vast range of issues. Why not reflect a UK interdependency within the parameters of what independence will mean in a referendum context, particularly if it significantly boosts the chances of winning?
This would probably mean UK passports, a shared defence force and safeguarding a shared currency. However, it could also mean full tax raising powers, full control of social security, offloading of nuclear weapons from Scottish soil and, who knows, maybe even some form of separate representation at the EU and UN. Would fundamentalist Nationalists be as passionate about voting Yes? Probably not, but the vast majority would still do so, and that would be alongside a crucial 30% of Scots who are currently undecided or intend to vote No.
The SNP would initially take pelters for such a u-turn, from the opposition and the media alike, and there is admittedly an argument as to whether they have a mandate to move decisively away from putting full independence to the people, as per their manifesto. However, having the electorate on your side is a powerful advantage and, once the dust had settled from the immediate furore, an intense pressure would be placed on the unionist parties to vote Yes or state clearly why they intended to vote No, given their past rhetoric. The Yes Scotland alliance, by contrast, could bask in the relative glory of healthy poll figures and fawning newspaper editorials.
Had Devo Max made it onto the ballot slip as a second question, it would have provided a guarantee for Yes Scotland that movement towards full independence was effectively assured. Without that guarantee, that Plan B, there is a strong possibility (many would say a likelihood) that Nationalists will come through this hard-fought and well-won referendum process empty handed and thoroughly dispirited. Perhaps bumping Plan B up to Plan A and watering independence down to Devo Max is the best bet for Salmond, and, for now, the best scenario for Scotland as a whole.