Senior members of Gordon Brown’s Cabinet have discussed the idea of holding an immediate referendum on Scottish independence, but have ruled it out on the ground that such a move would only play into the hands of the SNP, Whitehall sources have told The Times.

The issue was discussed, the sources said, at the highest levels of the Government “informally and over coffee” but never reached full British Cabinet level.

The disclosure emerged as Sir Tom Hunter, Scotland’s richest man, stoked the referendum debate north of the Border by calling for an immediate vote to be held on Scotland breaking away from the rest of Britain.

The well-placed sources who have spoken to The Times strongly denied suggestions that a Scottish referendum was ruled out by British ministers because it would have been impossible to hold one while denying the rest of Britain a referendum on the EU’s Lisbon Treaty. One source said: “Why would you want to hold a referendum on Scottish independence when what you would be doing would be putting the constitutional question centre-stage, something which is an SNP desire, not a Labour one?”

“It has nothing to do with the Lisbon Treaty. We were never going to hold a referendum on Lisbon anyway because it is simply not required.

“The main objection to holding a referendum in Scotland is that less than a year ago there was an election in Scotland, where two thirds of voters voted for parties who want Scotland to remain part of the UK.” However, the fact that UK ministers, briefly and informally, spent time discussing the merits of a referendum will come as a surprise to many, especially in the Labour Party in Scotland which, along with the other Unionist parties north of the Border, has set its face firmly against any such test of public opinion on the ground that it is not required.

It will, however, encourage some dissident elements in Labour ranks who believe that this strategy is a mistake and that an early referendum where independence was rejected would put the Nationalists’ raison d’être on the back burner of Scottish politics for a generation. The SNP reacted angrily to the disclosure of the Cabinet discussions. Nicola Sturgeon, the party’s deputy leader, said that British ministers, by “refusing to support the right of the people to determine their future, were putting party interests above Scotland’s interests”.

She added: “The fact that this has been discussed by members of Gordon Brown’s Cabinet underlines the fact that it is Labour in London who are calling the shots over Labour policy on the Scottish constitution. Wendy Alexander, the Scottish Labour leader, is totally hemmed by decisions taken by the leadership in London.”

Sir Tom’s support for an imediate referendum came in an article forScotland on Sunday newspaper. He justified it on the grounds that a vote on separation was needed to clarify Scotland’s constitutional position and to let the country move on.

However he underlined his nonpartisan approach to the issue by accusing all the Scottish political parties – Unionist and Nationalist – of “posturing, positioning and pontificating” in their attempts to reform the constitution.

His contribution came after a week in which the Unionist parties, Labour, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, have attempted to breathe new life into their cross-party constituional commission and the Nationalists have revealed that they would happily accept a multi-option referendum in which Scots were asked to choose between the status quo, enhanced devolved powers for Holyrood and independence.

The Unionists’ commission will look at which new powers should be devolved from Westminster, short of independence.

Sir Tom, in a rebuff to the multi-option poll favoured by Alex Salmond, the First Minister, said in his newspaper article : “It is my firm belief that the Scottish people deserve the right to vote unequivocally on one key issue. Other issues follow but there is only one vote: Do you want Scotland to be independent or not. Yes or No. Let the people of Scotland decide.”

Sir Tom’s wish for an immediate vote will not be granted, mainly because Unionist parties will not back a Referendum Bill because, they say, there is no demand for a such a vote.

Their opposition to a referendum has allowed the SNP to claim that these parties are antidemocratic although the opinion poll evidence is that if a referendum did go ahead, the Scots, by about three to one, would reject the independence option.

Mr Salmond, however, is to press ahead with his plans for a referendum on separation from the rest of Britain in 2010, knowing that it will not be realised because of the parliamentary arithmetic at Holyrood.

Approaching the 2011 Scottish elections, there is little doubt that Mr Salmond and the Nationalists will attempt to make this issue the defining one of that campaign.

Times Recommends

• UK regional accents thrive against the odds
• ‘Scarecrow’ wind farms put rare birds to flight
• What an anti-climax: G-spot is a myth