In tradition and theory, a Queen's Speech is supposed to set out a programme for government.

In reality, the monarch's reading of a statement at the opening of the parliamentary year is a laying out of cards, a declaration of intent. Yesterday, it became clear that David Cameron's administration has a less impressive hand than some assumed on the morning of 8 May.

Where Scotland, more powers for Holyrood, and "English votes for English laws" (EVEL) are concerned, bluffing is the name of the game. The Prime Minister has made an offer, broadly predicted, to devolve control of 40 per cent of taxes and 60 per cent of public spending. Predictably, too, the Scottish National Party will reject the bid. Arguments over what is right and appropriate at this point in the constitutional process will ensue.

Mr Cameron's government will say control of income tax rates and thresholds, a devolved 10 per cent of the standard VAT rate, and a say in the benefits system, involve a real and substantial transfer of power. The SNP will respond that retained control in other areas makes a token of the rest. Nationalists will add, once again, that their General Election triumph has altered cases. Their new mandate, in their book, merits a new offer.

Bluffing will turn soon enough to bargaining. The time is approaching for the SNP to state - in proper detail - the devolution it regards as sufficient. Nicola Sturgeon and her party are not, not yet, eager for another independence referendum. So what is right and sensible under the latest settlement? Mr Cameron meanwhile cannot wish away Scotland's General Election result. If nothing else, half of the electorate, having heard the Smith Commission's findings, still supported "more powers". There is a need now for all concerned to get down to cases.

Despite anxious barking from a few of Mr Cameron's back-benchers, fox-hunting will not (perhaps to the relief of the SNP) bring Scottish parliamentarians into conflict with their English Tory counterparts. If opinion polling is right, Conservative agitation over Europe will not cause ruptures between the nations. Those London newspapers determined to see an end to the Human Rights Act and the birth of a "British Bill of Rights" look likely, meanwhile, to be frustrated.

To some extent, these disparate issues are connected. The Prime Minister has drawn back, it appears, from an assault on the Human Rights Act because the issue is so complicated. In a constitutional sense, the act is embedded now within the UK settlement. There is a Scotland Act dependent on the European Convention. There is the Irish Good Friday Agreement, a treaty matter, with the convention at its heart. You cannot unpick these things unless you presume, foolishly, that nothing of importance has been devolved.

The same could be said of an in/out European referendum, fox-hunting, or EVEL. These are each, in their way, West Lothian questions. They ask questions of governance in the UK, of the right to vote as equals and - of increasing importance - of the right to reject what follows such a vote. If Westminster is to be sustained, a version of federalism capable of reflecting an asymmetrical Union has to be found. The demand, chiefly from Labour, for a full-blown constitutional convention looks more plausible by the day.

For Mr Cameron, this is the "big picture" so dear to a politician's heart. Smuggling EVEL into the constitution through a change in Commons standing orders - such seems to be the scheme - is not the mark of Prime Minister holding aces. Rushing through still another Immigration Act, another assault on the unions, yet another plan to solve a housing crisis - these do not speak of a new Conservative dawn.

Mr Cameron has a slim-enough majority: yesterday, it showed. Whether the Chancellor, George Osborne, displays as much realism in his next emergency Budget remains to be seen.