This week, the Scottish Government launched a new national discussion.

Its avowed aim is to ask people what that Government should do with the new powers that it will receive under the Scotland Act 2015 - whether further devolution allows it to promote both a "strong competitive economy and a fairer, more equal society".

The launch document lists some of the aims it wants to promote, including a reduction in gender inequality, as well as new ways to address the link between poverty and poorer health, between education attainment and crime. If you are not the cynical sort, it is an uplifting read, outlining the progress since devolution and a range of future aspirations.

There are two, equally plausible, ways to describe this discussion.

The first, articulated by commentators such as David Torrance and Kevin McKenna, is that the discussion is primarily a cynical exercise designed to kill time and avoid the big decisions - including major public service reforms and tax rises - that would help make Scotland fairer but its Government less popular.

The second, articulated by the Government, is that the talking is the most important part of the doing. It argues that the way we make policy matters. It's time to stop just making decisions for people or, at least, first ask them what we should do. It's time to stop making policy from the top down, involve people and communities in policy making, make the big decisions together, then invite local communities to make sense of broad aims in specific areas.

Somewhere in between those positions you have other people, including me, who remain optimistic but want to talk through the problems before getting too excited. Here are my top three.

First, the new devolution settlement, produced after "negotiations" between elected politicians and government departments, is a horrible mess. I genuinely don't understand the settlement or know what the Scottish Government can do with it.

Secondly, anyone who tells you that public sector reform makes complex government simpler and saves you money is selling you snake oil. Instead, it's a long-term investment for the future, at a time when the Government's main impetus is to spend less to balance the books.

Thirdly, we have not resolved the central-local question. Instead, this discussion should reinvigorate a debate about how national we want policy to be, to ensure uniform entitlement to benefits and services, and how local it should be, to allow governments to tailor policies to local needs. We want both, but we shouldn't pretend that life is that simple.

My gut tells me that the Scottish Government will try to make a difference but will start with the low-hanging fruit. Some modest reforms, addressing the hot-button topics like the bedroom tax, and based on trying to see the system through a service user's eyes, can make a genuine difference and help maintain the SNP's reputation for governing competence.

It will not, however, produce the fundamental change that some might associate with a fairer Scotland.

Paul Cairney, a Fellow of the Centre on Constitutional Change, is Professor of Politics at the University of Stirling.