The people have spoken.

But what have they said? Deciphering that, and simultaneously translating it into a meaningful package of "more powers for Scotland", as promised in the solemn vow taken by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister PM and the Leader of the Opposition, is the task facing Lord Smith.

It is not easy, but is it possible to produce a coherent and deliverable package of measures that will satisfy the majority of Scots, the 85% who turned out to vote, never mind the incredible, unprecedented 97% who declared an interest and registered?

Let's face facts. It is just not possible for Lord Smith's Commission to put together a package of measures that will fully meet the power aspirations of all, certainly not the parties. However, by appealing directly to the public, who will elect the representatives whom we send to Westminster in May to implement any proposals which may be agreed, can Lord Smith make the incoming government an offer it can't refuse? I think it's possible.

If a package of measures, developed as a highest common denominator among the parties, can be negotiated, with the public holding the politicians' feet to the fire on that agreed issue of the need for more powers, can it be enough to carry the day?

Is it possible for such a package to be both credible outside Westminster and implementable inside the Houses of Parliament? It could, but it will need to be more than that. Let me explain.

It's the economy, stupid. It is clear that the central fault line of the referendum campaign was the economy, with stability and growth as the cudgels of choice of the two campaigns, one mostly positive, the other largely negative. But, in that final week following the only opinion poll that mattered in the run-up to the actual vote, the two campaigns unwittingly converged on the one issue: the economy.

Both campaigns read the mood of an increasingly frustrated electorate and promised to strengthen our economy and make it more resilient.Neatly for the Scottish Council for Development and Industry (SCDI), this brought us full circle. We began our own intervention in the campaign by hosting the Governor of the Bank of England, in the spring.

Mark Carney gave a technical and yet very engaging assessment of the risks involved, if the vote was to go either way. This moved the collective mind-set from a dull, depressing debate about personalities and often transient policies to one of principles and of powers for a purpose, focused on making the economy more resilient to external shocks, from wherever they may be generated.

Almost immediately, we saw a step-change in the quality of the public debate. The politicians sensed something had shifted. The public became engaged and took control of the discussion, on street corners, in pubs, at the school gates and of course all across social media.

The debate raged the length and breadth of the country, mainly in good mood and humour, mostly ignoring the bluff and bluster of the campaigns. One single issue united; it's the economy, stupid.

Now, neither the UK nor the Scottish Government should have been surprised by any of this, as sustainable economic growth is after all their common, central policy purpose, their key political aim.

It's what they are both seeking to achieve. It is the purpose for the power they so desperately crave. It's where, critically, their interests align with each other and, crucially, they converge with the public.

If Lord Smith can identify that commonality and sprinkle any dry agreement between the parties over the powers they want to hold with the magic dust that spread across the population during what was an extraordinary exercise in public engagement, then he may achieve his aim of uniting us all in common cause.

If he does that then I think, for the current period at least, he can leave a lasting settlement. So good luck to all involved; or as we say at SCDI, keep "engaging civic Scotland: driving economic growth".