FOR followers of the arcane details of the independence debate there was quite a lot that sounded rather familiar in yesterday's much-heralded launch of the Scottish Government's proposals for an independence referendum.
Although this may have been the first time that much of the outside world has taken an interest in Mr Salmond's plans, this was the fourth major document on the subject the First Minister has launched since he first came to office in 2007. Inevitably, there was a fair amount of repetition.
Yet there was also some important shifting of ground. Above all, although Mr Salmond still insists that Holyrood does have the ability to hold an independence referendum so long as it is carefully worded to conform to the limitations of the Scotland Act, he is now no longer seeking to do so.
Instead of the convoluted wording any such referendum necessarily entails, the SNP now wishes to hold a simple Yes/No vote on a straightforward question on independence.
That, as Mr Salmond acknowledged yesterday, undoubtedly requires Westminster to transfer the necessary powers.
That means he eventually is going to have to try to secure agreement with the UK Government on how the referendum is conducted.
Some of the more detailed changes of mind that were unveiled yesterday look as though they could help smooth the path towards an eventual resolution of the dispute between the two governments.
First of all, Mr Salmond has shifted his position closer to that of the UK Government on how the referendum should be run.
Two years ago, he anticipated giving responsibility for regulating and monitoring the referendum to a specially created Scottish Referendum Commission.
Now he is willing to accept the UK Government's argument that the UK Electoral Commission should perform those roles, so long as it reports to Holyrood rather than Westminster.
Mind you, unlike other recent referendums, the Electoral Commission is not to be given overall responsibility for actually running the referendum.
Nevertheless, the issue now no longer looks like the potential flash- point between the two governments that it appeared a week ago.
More intriguing in that respect is a second change from previous SNP documents.
The latest document says much less about the mechanics and details of a possible second question on devo-max.
Two years ago, we were given details of how that question might be asked and how it would be decided which option had won.
This time such details are entirely absent, instead the paper simply seeks views on the principle of whether that option should appear on the ballot paper at all and says it would take advice on how it would be decided who had won.
In so doing, Mr Salmond is deftly keeping his options open. For the time being he wants to keep his "consolation prize" alive, should the poll numbers on support for independence continue stubbornly to fail to move.
But perhaps he is also making it easier to drop the second question, should his consultation fail after all to show a strong demand for the inclusion of this second option on the ballot paper – and should its potential inclusion eventually stand between him and reaching an accommodation with the UK Government.
The two governments do still remain at odds with each other on two other issues, where, for the time being, Mr Salmond is sticking to his guns.
The first is on the timing of the referendum. Here the UK Government will probably have little option but to give way, comforting itself with the thought that at least the vote will be taking place in 2014 rather than 2016.
The second is whether 16 and 17-year-olds should be allowed to vote. On this, the truth is that the ability of the SNP to implement its idea is heavily constrained by existing electoral registration law and practice, over which it has no control.
In practice these constraints mean that, at most, only some 17-year-olds would be able to vote in any referendum held in the autumn, as only those whose 18th birthday falls before December 1 will be on the register anyway.
In these circumstances it seems difficult to believe this is an issue the SNP would allow to scupper an agreement .
Two weeks ago, we were in the midst of a blazing row between Edinburgh and London.
The tension is still there, but Mr Salmond may now have helped pave a path towards eventual harmony after all.
l John Curtice is professor of Politics at Strathclyde University
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article