ACCUSATIONS that the SNP was "rigging" its consultation on the referendum on independence were followed by a declaration yesterday that anonymous submissions will not be included in the analysis of the response, while the Scottish Government's website has also been amended to prevent anonymous submissions.

After such submissions were defended at the weekend by the Cabinet Secretary for Parliamentary Business Bruce Crawford and Stuart Hosie, the SNP's Treasury spokesman at Westminster, the change of tack looks like a climb-down.

There is, however, a far more important issue at stake here than political point-scoring between the SNP and Labour.

The SNP has said that previous consultations under the joint Labour-Liberal Democrat administration accepted anonymous contributions. There is a significant difference in relation to the consultation on the referendum. Its outcome will be used to shape the most important vote to be cast by the people of Scotland. Any allegation that it has been skewed or hijacked by one side or the other risks suspicion of political manipulation.

By yesterday morning, 11,986 responses had been submitted to the consultation. That is an encouraging indication of the level of public involvement. While only 3.5% were anonymous and, according to Mr Crawford, there was no evidence of multiple identical responses from the same person, the possibility of organised duplicate submissions, whether from the SNP's army of technologically-adept "cybernats" or from the Unionist parties, has left a question over the impartiality of the responses.

In this regard, compared with the UK Government's consultation on the referendum, which allowed respondents to request anonymity only if they provided details of their identity which would be available for inspection to an overseeing body such as the Electoral Commission, the Scottish consultation looks flawed.

The SNP was keen not to look as if it had been caught on the back foot by David Cameron but the announcement of a separate Scottish consultation would have benefited by being more rigorously tested for neutrality.

The Scottish process, however, has the considerable advantage of responses being analysed by an external body, which will exclude any duplicates which appear to be from the same computer as well as anonymous submissions. This is a vital first step in regaining the transparency which Mr Salmond said would be an integral part of the process. It is also essential that the analysis is made public if it is to satisfy demand for accountability.

Unless there is complete confidence that every aspect of the referendum is as unbiased as can possibly be achieved, it will be open to suspicion of political influence. It must also be remembered that the landslide vote which produced the unexpected outright majority for the SNP at Holyrood does not mean voters have suspended their critical faculties. Quite the reverse. A feeling that in some areas the Labour party was taking support for granted was a significant factor in the swing to the SNP. Mr Salmond should not forget that the boot could just as easily be transferred to the other foot.

The lesson from this consultation is that every aspect of the referendum process must be overseen, from the beginning, by a politically neutral and independent body such as the Electoral Commission.