Reading The Morning After, a new book about the 1995 referendum in Quebec, I was once again struck by the parallels with Scotland.

A last-minute erosion of the No campaign's poll lead? Check; a panicky offer of more autonomy in response? Check; a hastily assembled rally of those in the rest of the country saying "please don't go"? Again, check.

The then Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien, who like David Cameron had kept a low profile during the campaign, announced a damascene conversion to acknowledging Quebec as a "distinct society".

But such is the behaviour of politicians when faced with unpredictable events. In the final few weeks of the Scottish referendum campaign, Prime Ministers past (Gordon Brown) and present (Mr Cameron) found themselves in much the same position.

The SNP charge that their offer of "more powers" was somehow cobbled together at the last minute is a deliberate caricature: in fact the three Unionist parties' plans had been before the electorate for several months.

What accelerated in the face of narrowing polls was the timescale, which was the nub of Mr Brown's Chretien-like speech and the subsequent "vow" from the three Westminster party leaders.

Early indications are that the now ongoing inter-party negotiations will produce something in advance of the three parties' individual prospectuses rather than a downgrading. There is a collective recognition the post-referendum dynamic demands all those concerned rise to the constitutional occasion.

Key to this is Lord Smith of Kelvin, a smart appointment by the UK Government who by dint of his CV is able to work with all parties including the SNP. On this, incoming party leader (and therefore First Minister) Nicola Sturgeon has been making constructive noises.

Her astute political antennae have detected the mood for what one might call Team Scotland to work together - a common endeavour to find some sort of constitutional middle ground after a bruising two-year campaign. Sitting this one out, as with the Scottish Constitutional Convention and Calman Commission, simply isn't an option.

There is also an emerging, and rather less constructive, narrative from the Scottish Government. Over the past few days the triumvirate of Alex Salmond, John Swinney and Ms Sturgeon have been deliberately setting the bar high, claiming the Unionists offered Home Rule, federalism or devo-max before polling day and it's now incumbent upon them to deliver.

It's a neat framing device that both compels the Unionist parties to respond while also setting them up to fail. Indeed, the outgoing First Minister got to work just hours after the Prime Minister had made his early-morning statement outside Downing Street. No voters, Mr Salmond claimed, had been "tricked", while Westminster was, inevitably, "reneging" on its promises. The clear intention is to shout "told you so" over and over until the General Election.

There are, however, several problems with this approach. First, the only people to have consistently deployed the term devo-max are Nationalists, while the supposed offer of federalism has been taken out of context. What Mr Brown said was that assuming the devolution of more powers then within a couple of years the UK would be "as close to a federal state" as it was possible to be with England so dominant.

Now that is rather different from promising a full-blooded federalism. It's true Mr Brown used the term Home Rule, but that is also open to interpretation. Home Rule, for example, was also used to describe the original devolution settlement more than 15 years ago. Just as the definition of "independence" has changed significantly over the decades, so too has the meaning of Home Rule.

However tight, the Smith timescale is eminently achievable. This process is not starting from scratch; rather it's using already substantial proposals from Labour, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats as a starting point. Sure, the October deadline isn't ideal, but much of the hard graft has already been done.

That doesn't mean the process isn't without risk, although that comes from England rather than north of the Border. As the Prime Minister made clear the morning after the referendum, further devolution to Scotland would "take place in tandem with" English reforms. But, like two riders on a tandem, if one falls off so too does the other.

Downing Street has repeatedly made clear that won't be the case and most likely they are correct, but there is a perceptual problem. It will be very difficult to prevent the apparent failure of the English process from tarnishing that in Scotland; and failure is not too strong a word, not least because the beguiling simplicity of "English Votes for English Laws" (EVEL) is the wrong answer to the right question - how is England to be governed?

The fact the SNP strongly approve of EVEL is evidence enough of its wrong-headedness, for it would undermine one of the things that currently binds all parts of the UK together, the equal status of MPs no matter what constituency they represent. The West Lothian Question is not new - similar tensions existed when Northern Ireland had Home Rule between 1922-72 - but such anomalies ought to be a tolerable sacrifice for pragmatic Unionists.

Even once there's agreement on what Scottish Home Rule looks like, it will require careful presentation. A few years ago the three Unionist parties failed to sell their Calman proposals in punter-friendly terms, and if they fail on that front again then the SNP will plug the narrative vacuum. Yesterday Ruth Davidson, who has been rather better at preaching the New Unionist gospel than her Labour colleagues, described the opportunity to "craft and hew a settlement that fits the age and meets our ambitions".

New Unionists should also appreciate the need for symbolism as well as substance in forging a New Union. Why not commit to rebranding the Bank of England as the Central Bank of the United Kingdom? And why not commit the Prime Minister to deliver an annual State of the Union address? There are also dangers for Ms Sturgeon, soon to be subject to this columnist's biographical pen. Not only will she have to guard against a possible revival of the SNP's old fundamentalist/gradualist split as a result of all those new members, but also tread very carefully in terms of future referendum plans.

A few months ago the Parti Quebecois got trounced in Provincial elections for hinting a third referendum might be in the offing. Even so, the post-referendum landscape is, as Mr Salmond observed, "redolent with opportunity" from a Nationalist perspective. The failure of the 1987 Meech Lake Accord, contrived to increase federalist support in Quebec, ended up doing the opposite and led directly to the 1995 near miss. Unionists would do well to emulate my bedside reading.