There's a couple of things to this, and I've been in the hiring and firing business for a while (though to tell the truth I am a senior developer now and don't really like the Hiring procedure - I like to cut code :) )
In my opinion, depending on the industry, the lack of a formal qualification could be a good thing or a bad thing. For many, it's an unfortunate catch-22. You can't get a job because you don't have the experience, and you can't get the experience without a job.
(It's worth noting at this point that I am coming at this from an I.T perspective, and other industries may differ).
I was once perplexed at the notion that a programmer with no experience, but who excelled in the interview, could out-play someone with a degree in computer science. Similarly, I was perplexed by the fact that two graduates from the same course, same university, and ultimately the same grade could make me hire one and not the other.
So I put some more thought and consultation in to this. Turns out that someone who went on a computer science degree as an option versus someone who truly loved the work, produced the same grade - but the latter were more hireable.
But we can go a step further here. Companies should not be hiring on qualifications. I've had PhD students unable to comprehend simple facts. I'm after a person who is able to do the job and, more importantly, fit in. It may be uncommon knowledge, but a decent manager would prefer the lesser-skilled guy that fits in over the highly-skilled guy with social issues. Why? Because we can train the lesser-skilled person. We can't take the anti-social out of the other guy, even if he is more qualified.
So to answer your question - make your skills demonstrable. Any decent employer should see you as a good candidate despite the lack of formal qualifications which (at least in my industry) are becoming more and more irrelevant. I'm after talent and FIFO (Fit In, or F-Off).