EIGHT months ago, from the then rather more modest SNP benches in the Commons, Angus Robertson expressed a "great sympathy" with the principle of English Votes for English Laws (Evel).

It was a sentiment repeated by Alex Salmond in an interview just last month. The First Minister, in February, said "the case could be made" for Evel in cases in which legislation was genuinely English only.

David Mundell, the Scottish Secretary, when attempting to sell the controversial reforms announced this week to journalists raised the long-standing self-denying ordinance SNP MPs adopted when it came to legislation that they considered only to affect England.

Yet the proposals announced on Thursday - offering an 'English veto' on what would only have an impact down south - were met with howls of derision from the nationalists. "An outrage" was how Mr Robertson put it. Nicola Sturgeon branded the plan "staggering in the extent of its hypocrisy and incoherence", even suggesting the "disrespect to Scotland" shown would bring independence closer.

Their objections seem to be two-fold. First, that the reforms are to be brought in using standing orders rather than primary legislation. It means they will not be subject to the same scrutiny and crucially, makes any legal challenge to what should fall into the English-only category impossible.

Secondly, and more fundamentally, who decides what an English-only law is? That power, the Tories say, will be in the hands of the speaker. The SNP adopts a broad definition. The NHS may be devolved, but through the Barnett Formula, its funding down south has a direct impact on Scotland's budget. In the 2001-05 parliament, SNP MPs voted against foundation hospitals on that basis. Decisions over tuition fees, as another example, may have an indirect impact on Scottish budgets and demand at the country's universities.

It remains to be seen what the view the Commons clerks take and is worth remembering that had John Bercow not narrowly survived a Tory coup shortly before Parliament broke up, we might well have a stooge in his chair now.

But while concern on the points are valid, it appears the SNP's stance on voting on English matters is rapidly shifting. The First Minister said in the run-up to the general election that her MPs would vote at "each and every opportunity" where Scotland's interests were affected, which was then seen as a radical change in approach. She cited the sole example of fox hunting as a genuinely English-only issue. Weeks later, with a Conservative majority and a vote to repeal the fox hunting ban down south back on the cards, she said her party "had not yet taken a decision on this" and "certainly did not agree with repealing the ban."

In the last few days the recent converts to the cause have adopted language long used by Labour, who no-one could accuse of having an inconsistent position on Evel. "He is now going to introduce second-class status for us as MPs elected from Scotland!" Mr Robertson complained on Thursday. Presumably the term was just far enough removed from "two classes of MP" to prevent the need for an SNP royalty cheque being dispatched to Kirkcaldy.

So is there any way of formalising Evel which would satisfy the SNP? Examples of a proposed solution from the party are few and far between.

Alex Salmond, in 2010, in response to a report on Evel, said "The right solution is to have a Scottish parliament and an English parliament." Maybe he meant independence. But yesterday, Pete Wishart, The SNP's Commons business spokesman, made a suggestion that, despite the bluster, is not a million miles away from what is on the table currently.

"A way we might get around this is if the speaker was to consult with the Presiding Officer at the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly maybe we could be in a position where there could be a certification process that would command confidence from Scottish Members of Parliament," he said in a radio interview.

He added the the UK Government had thus far shown no interest in pursuing the proposal but with a tight vote looming and a wafer-thin majority, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that David Cameron could accept the demand to get his reforms through.

When Mr Mundell was asked on Thursday whether the current Evel plan amounted to federalism, he replied in the negative. But the suggestion Mr Wishart slipped out - which follows the call for a Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish veto over the EU referendum - was noticeably federal in tone.

With calls for Full Fiscal Autonomy - for which the SNP have an undoubted democratic mandate - rather more muted than might have been expected, it begs the question as to whether, ever so quietly, federalism is the direction in which the SNP, for now, is heading.