Had the referendum on independence gone the other way, it would have produced revolutionary change in Scotland's constitutional arrangements.

Voters opted instead for an evolutionary process, seeking more powers for the Scottish Parliament and Government while retaining the benefits of UK membership.

The Smith Commission on Devolution is thrashing out that new package of powers, which will build on those contained in the Scotland Act of 2012, which is in turn an evolution of the original founding powers of the Scottish Parliament. Extensive though the new settlement is likely to be, it will almost certainly not mark the end point of Scotland's ongoing constitutional journey. Refinements and tweaks will probably be required in subsequent years, as the way the constituent parts of the UK work together under the new arrangements throws up unforeseen glitches.

The tight timetable within which the Commission must agree on the new powers, while crucial in order to fulfil the expectations of Scottish voters, does mean that there will not be as much opportunity to model how the powers will work in practice as might be desirable.

That is one reason why there is merit in the proposal put forward by the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Church of Scotland, the National Union of Students and the Electoral Reform Society that the Parliament's powers should be regularly reviewed. Whether this should happen every five years, as these institutions suggest, or whether on a longer time frame, is a matter for discussion. A rammy on the constitution every five years, the same cycle as elections to Holyrood and Westminster, could potentially be somewhat distracting; that the pro-independence parties would seek to use it to make the case for Scotland going it alone goes without saying and would be their absolute right. Whether a five-yearly maelstrom of angst about the constitution would be in the best interests of stability and long-term government planning, however, is another question.

Even so, the principle of review is a sound one. It should focus on establishing whether there are irrationalities with the existing settlement, with an eye to bringing forward legislation to make the system run more smoothly. This will be still more important if the constitutional arrangements of the rest of the UK change subsequently to Scotland's, as seems very likely.

One of the downsides of the telescoped timescale for the Smith deliberations has always been the limit it puts on public involvement. The group are absolutely right that a deal based on horse-trading by the political parties is not going to be sufficient and that a regular review mechanism would allow for greater input by civic society groups and individuals, the referendum having engaged the Scottish population in politics to such dramatic effect. This inspired suggestion itself highlights how important it is that this process is not merely left to the politicians.