Whither Scotland? This country's constitutional future could be decided in 2010 in a multi-option referendum using a preferential voting system. Conversely, how, and the extent to which, Scotland manages its affairs could be determined by the Holyrood and Westminster governments deliberating then voting on the findings of a commission reviewing the devolved powers of the Scottish Parliament.

It might seem to the disinterested observer that this is a debate fit for a tutorial of politics undergraduates.

But the change in the political landscape brought about by the pro-independence SNP coming to power at Holyrood last year, allied to a growing acceptance that the politicians whom Scots elect should be held to greater account, and take more responsibility, for the billions of pounds of public money they spend, mean the debate has a resonance beyond academic circles. If this were not so, the three anti-independence Unionist parties at Holyrood (Labour, Liberal Democrats and Conservatives) would not have given their backing to the Scottish Parliament Commission, launched on Tuesday, on how devolution could be improved, taking account of responsibilities for spending and leaving independence off the agenda.

Nor would Alex Salmond have introduced yesterday the latest phase of the SNP's National Conversation on Scotland's constitutional future. Parliamentary arithmetic has limited the opportunities for the First Minister's minority administration to produce policy surprises. However, Mr Salmond pulled a rabbit out of the hat when, yesterday, he indicated that a referendum on independence could include two other options for Scotland's future: the status quo or more powers for the Holyrood parliament. Deploying the single transferable vote model, as used in council elections (STV), could mean independence being passed on the second preference of voters, securing potentially less than 50% of the vote initially cast.

Whether this is a master stroke on Mr Salmond's part, or the act of a desperate man, as the opposition parties claim, is too early to say. It has the look of a gamble. While there are few signs of the SNP honeymoon ending, the polls show there is insufficient support for the Nationalists to win a referendum on independence. Many voters remain to be won over and the opposition parties will seize on the psephology to warn of the dangers of opting for independence by default in a multi-option referendum, should that be the SNP's preferred model and should the minority government manage somehow to secure enough parliamentary support to organise that vote.

Mr Salmond is confident the public can handle a multi-option referendum, but could that be taken for granted, given the voter confusion that caused so many spoiled papers in last year's Holyrood polls? Granted, two years is a long time in politics and much can change between now and a possible referendum. The priority for the commission and the conversation will be to engage the public in debate. Each initiative has made this territory more complex. It is the responsibility of the proponents to ensure people are turned on and tuned in to the debate. With so much potentially at stake, turning the public off could have damaging consequences.