Here's a thought anent the proposed referendum on Scottish independence. Not when it might take place, but what it might comprise.
Scottish Parliamentary powers were on the agenda this afternoon for a meeting between Alex Salmond, soon to be the returned first minister, and Michael Moore, the Scottish secretary.
But behind it all now lies the deliverable promise by the re-elected Scottish government to hold a referendum within the five year lifetime of the new parliament.
That meeting first. Mr Salmond emphasised that he wanted the present Scotland Bill to be enhanced.
Specifically, he wants earlier and bigger borrowing powers; control of Crown Estate revenues in Scotland; and devolution of corporation tax.
Mr Moore wants further and better particulars before his government decides.
But, in summary, he is interested in speeding up borrowing powers; potentially interested in elements of the Crown Estate pitch; and pretty sceptical about the corporation tax ask, despite the fact that it is being considered for Northern Ireland.
In essence, Mr Salmond argued that such concessions were effectively mandated by the Holyrood election result.
Which brings us back to the referendum. You might suppose it would be a straight yea or nay to independence.
Ain't necessarily so. Certainly, the Scottish government outlined such a prospect in its original White Paper on the topic in August 2007.
Then it was envisaged that the wording would be Yes or No to the proposition "that the Scottish government should negotiate a settlement with the government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state."
There might then be a further argument as to whether there should be a subsequent referendum on the outcome of any such negotiations, should Scotland give the go-ahead to the talks.
Mr Salmond says that would not be required. Others dissent.
But there is an alternative prospectus. In the White Paper of February 2010, the Scottish government outlined a multi-option plebiscite.
In the wording used at the time, Scots would be asked whether or not they agreed that "the Scottish Parliament should have its financial powers and responsibilities extended as recommended by the Commission on Scottish Devolution."
There would then be a second question, examing the following statement: "The Scottish government proposes that, in addition to the extension of the powers and responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament set out in Proposal 1, the parliament's powers should also be extended to enable independence to be achieved."
Now, the Calman package is presently incorporated in the Scotland Bill - which Mr Salmond is seeking to enhance.
It would not seem feasible that this would feature as an option in a referendum in three years time.
But Mr Salmond is of the view that full fiscal powers - perhaps building on the Liberal Democrats' Steel Commission - would require a referendum before implementation.
Is it in prospect, then, that the planned referendum might incorporate both fiscal autonomy and full independence as options?
The upside for the SNP? If people are not ready for independence, even in three years time, then perhaps they might be persuaded to vote for fiscal autonomy as some form of fallback - when they might be more reluctant if it were presented straightforwardly as a single choice.