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".
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article