"Power to the people!

- Citizen Smith

HE makes an odd Wolfie Smith does our Lord Smith of Kelvin, head of the eponymous commission on added powers for Scotland. John Sullivan's beloved comedy creation sported a beret, jeans, a Che T-shirt and chips the size of bricks on both shoulders. Lord Smith prefers a natty suit and, with a long and successful career in the commercial sector behind him, he is certainly no Marxist.

Yet make no mistake. Despite objections from the pro-independence movement that the proposals do not go nearly far enough, and with the Grand Canyon-sized caveat that the plans are by no means guaranteed to pass into law (there could yet be many a slip betwixt the Holyrood cup and Westminster lip), the recommendations published yesterday amount to nothing less than a coup.

Not in a coup d'etat sense - steady on there, comrades - but in the successful accomplishment of a task that had been thought impossible. Lord Smith, having consulted far and wide, has turned water into vino in establishing a consensus among the five main Scottish parties on the best way forward for Scotland after what was a relatively close referendum result. As his report says: "The recommendations set out in the agreement will result in the biggest transfer of power to the Scottish Parliament since its establishment."

Let us be honest here about how this tale began. When first raised, "The Vow" sounded like classic, back of a fag packet stuff. That is because it was. In the aftermath of polls showing the gap between Yes and No narrowing, the vow washed up on Scotland's shores, a message in a bottle from UK leaders who were, frankly, bottling it. David Cameron, having gone on record about further powers, had no choice but to carry it forward, even if he ultimately could not resist adding a controversial rider to the deal in his plans for English votes for English laws (Evel).

The Yes camp argued the UK party leaders were handing the Scottish voter a bag of lemons. Well, so it may yet prove. For now, however, Lord Smith has come forward with lemonade. Though the Yes camp may choose to characterise those who voted No as dupes, gulled at the last minute by phoney promises, the alternative view is that a significant part of the electorate acted cannily. Bringing about a result that was closer than anyone had expected made it clear Scottish voters were not going to be taken for granted.

Voters have an annoying habit of being smarter than political parties allow, and so it proved here. For those who wanted a safer option between no change and all change, the outcome that emerged in the small hours of September 19 was a result in more ways than one.

One way to judge how radical Smith has been is to listen to the grumbling that has greeted the recommendations in some quarters. English MPs in particular are not happy. Scottish Labour MPs, mindful of Gordon Brown's warning about a Tory trap, fear they have been frogmarched into one by their so-called friends in the North. The Prime Minister, indeed, rushed to place proposals on Evel in his letter to Santa. Under the Smith Commission recommendations, votes on the Budget are meant to be safe ("MPs representing constituencies across the whole of the UK will continue to decide the UK's Budget, including income tax"), but Labour's Scottish MPs are nevertheless, and with good reason, muttering about wedges and thin ends.

As are those who fear the implications for Barnett funding once Scotland starts to raise more of what it spends. It is expected that adjustments will be made so that, in the words of the report, "the Scottish and UK Governments' budgets should be no larger or smaller simply as a result of the initial transfer of tax and/or spending powers, before considering how these are used".

But see previous warning about slips between cup and lip. The UK Government is already under pressure from those who are already regard Barnett as too generous to Scotland. Far from seeing the Smith plans as a responsible move that will make Holyrood more accountable for its actions, the proposals will be derided as Scots somehow pulling a fast one. Not just having our cake and eating it, but getting the right to dip into the cake shop's until whenever we feel like it.

That is not the case, as anyone who cares to read the report will see, but this will not prevent some deploying the charge to their own ends. And what might those ends be, you ask? Therein lies the rub. The Smith Commission report runs to just 28 pages and is the very model of concise argument. One wonders, though, if it will go the way of so many Budgets down the years - hailed on first sight as a model of clarity, a triumph of reasoning, only to be later revealed as a piece of work with more holes and wriggle room than Rab C Nesbitt's vest.

The Mayor of London, for one, will be foremost among those keen to capitalise on the Smith report, positioning London and the south east, with its streets upon streets of millionaires rows, as hard done by. Anyone would think he had one eye on a future leadership campaign. Councils in the north of England will be up in arms as well, and not just those who will lose out to Scottish airports once Air Passenger Duty goes. It will matter not that Scotland hardly arrived at this position overnight. It will matter not that it is a nation in its own right and the differences between it and, say, an English council are fundamental and deep-rooted. Those who seek to benefit from what they see as Scotland's gain will give no quarter.

What all sides seem to agree on, even if they do not say so openly, is that a rock has been thrown into the UK's constitutional pond and no-one yet knows how far the ripples might stretch. Such was the speed of manoeuvring yesterday that, even before Lord Smith sat down at the National Museum of Scotland, his shiny new report was already looking dusty. Tory backbenchers were pressing their leader for action on Evel, while Labour MPs were urging Ed Miliband to stop faffing on devolution outwith Scotland.

The Scottish Government, even though the SNP had been party to the report, lost no time in pointing out the powers proposed would allow for mere tinkering when what was required was a change of engine and direction.

Far from being anything close to a final word on more powers for Scotland, the Smith report could be just the start of many new arguments to come. One wonders, though, how much more to-ing and fro-ing the public desire. Do voters want yet more heated debate, or do they wish the Smith plan to be at least given a fair wind? It is too early to go back to bickering business as usual. Citizen Smith has done the business. For now, let us give peace, and the proposals, a chance.