THE talking point of the week in Scotland —among those who talk about such things — were the two big talking shops backed by one or other of all the main political parties. Chattering away in the pro-unionist corner was the triumvirate of Labour, the Tories and Lib Dems who have formed an uneasy truce to keep the nationalists at bay.

Their commission — to review Scotland's constitutional arrangements 10 years after devolution — appointed a chairman on Tuesday and will consider more powers for the Scottish parliament, but won't mention the “I” word. A day later Alex Salmond launched stage two of his “national conversation”, not only mentioning the “I” word, of course, but putting it centre stage, with the suggestion that he will hold a referendum two years from now.

This has long been his goal but the surprise this time was his announcement that voting in his ballot could be carried out under the single transferable vote (STV) system. In a multi-option poll, voters could choose between independence, more powers for the parliament short of full separation or no change. Even if less than a third had independence as their first choice, it could still win thanks to the second preference votes and Salmond would have his mandate for independence without a majority in favour.

Now, there is nothing unusual about the majority being ignored by politicians. A majority would probably rather politicians got the roads fixed, the hospitals cleaned and the schools improved than sit around holding conversations. But we're having the conversations anyway.

More than two-thirds of voters — a very big majority — don't want independence but we have a nationalist administration in place and it seems to be leading us towards independence by stealth.

Why should Salmond let a little thing like 77% of the electorate discourage him when he has overcome all other obstacles to get where he is today? It should be Labour leader Wendy Alexander's commission that is setting the agenda. Not only does it have the backing of all the main opposition parties, it has been endorsed by a majority in the Scottish parliament, and it even has the seal of approval of the prime minister.

Salmond has none of this. He and his band of nationalist MSPs are clutching at straws, as the Tory leader Annabel Goldie said. His proposal of an independence referendum under the STV system is “absurd”, “tripe”, “the wild words of a panicking man”. But did anyone ever look less like a panicking man than Salmond bestriding the Scottish political stage, his confidence growing by the day, by the hour?

In a way he has already won by so terrorising the opposition that they have conceded half of what he wants. Only the Lib Dems supported the idea of more powers for the parliament before last May's Scottish elections. Now they all do, and even Gordon Brown has softened his objections (at least on the surface).

In their bid to extend devolution's reach they are playing directly into Salmond's hands, occupying his own constitutional ground and agreeing with him that the Scotland Act did not go far enough.

An unbending defence of the Union would have been the best line of attack but so alarmed are they at the nationalist leader's popularity they do not dare to oppose him outright. The only muscular counterblast to the first minister recently has come from politicians outside Edinburgh — in particular from the Scotland Office minister David Cairns.

Cairns mocks the “balderdash” of Salmond, a “Robin Hood in reverse”, accuses him of cowardice, and jumps on every preposterous nationalist claim. He has also questioned the credibility and wisdom of Scottish Labour's constitutional commission, calling it the obsession of the “McChattering classes”, and is against giving Scotland tax-raising powers.

The Scottish government currently controls health, education, law and order, transport, tourism, the environment and housing. Beefing it up further will boost the political industry at Holyrood and swell the ranks of bureaucrats but it won't deliver the kind of schools and hospitals Scots want.

This is surely closer to mainstream public opinion than the wittering of Alexander and co but they do not want to take on Salmond in the most crucial battle — that of independence. Alexander's commission is about containing the nationalist threat, not confronting it.

And now Salmond has outmanoeuvred her again. While he offers voters a choice, she has said it is highly unlikely her commission will be put to a vote. This makes him look like the defender of democracy, a man of reason giving the public the power to decide their own fate. “I'm pretty sure the people of Scotland can handle a multiple-option referendum,” he said.

And it makes the opposition look faint-hearted. Never mind that their talkfest is unlikely to propose anything so constitutionally significant it would warrant a referendum. And never mind that Salmond is a chancer, skilled at manipulation and guided in the main by the fact that he doesn't have the numbers, either in the parliament or among the electorate.

Once more, he has the upper hand. His national conversation, dominated up to now by nationalist fanatics indulging their prejudices on a website, has grabbed the headlines.

He is the centre of attention, he has the nation rapt and the other political parties measuring themselves against him. This, one suspects, is what is important to him, even more so perhaps than independence. Imagine if Salmond were to put his party's chief tenet to the vote and it was rejected (as it would be). He would lose everything.

Far smarter, then, to toy with the idea of a referendum which keeps his troops on board temporarily but is so outrageous, so “absurd”, that it will never be accepted by the parliament, and will therefore never happen. Power, he has discovered, beats principles - so why sacrifice it? Running the country is more fun than ruining it.

If this is his game, he is even wilier than we thought — and his opponents are even more of a washout. But there is trouble looming. If he fails to further the separatist cause, the diehard fundamentalists in his party, who are already on to him, will erupt and he will have some explaining to do. That is one conversation he does not want to start.

jenny.hjul@sunday-times.co.uk