If there is one unarguable fact that emerges from the independence referendum result it is that Scotland did not vote for the status quo.
And yet this is the one message from the millions who voted which the Westminster parties simply do not understand.
Those who attended meetings all over the country, those who registered to vote for the first time in their lives, those who became engaged in political debate from which they had for years felt excluded ... these Scots wanted anything but a return to business as usual.
Yet that is exactly what we are being offered by political parties more comfortable with cynical manipulation than representing the people to whom they are answerable.
We can see that cynicism in the transparent twisting of the much-lauded "vow" of more powers to Scotland for crass party political gain by David Cameron.
And we can see it in the Conservatives' rush to drop their patently false "We're all in it together" mantra and instead ramp up their efforts to make the poor pay for the effects of the financial crash at the same time as awarding tax advantages to those earning a comfortable salary.
As we report today, Scotland's charities have reacted with fury to plans announced by Chancellor George Osbourne to freeze benefits for two years.
The charities argue that these measures will force many more families and children into poverty, and undo all the advances which have been made to tackle inequality over the past decade.
The Tories' proposals are all the more depressing coming as they do just weeks after Scotland was engaged in an electrifying discussion which placed social justice and fairness at its heart.
The Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives' Coalition partners, are now keen to distance themselves from Cameron and Osborne's latest cruelties.
Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander yesterday tried to claim that the Conservatives had changed since the Coalition deal, that they had moved from a "more caring Conservativism" to an altogether more brutal approach to austerity.
Of course, Alexander was less forthcoming about his feelings while compaigning with the Conservatives to defeat independence in the referendum.
Seasoned political commentators will say that this is hardly surprising, that this is how politics works. But that, in a nutshell, is the problem.
On constitutional change, too, the referendum was a mandate for action. There is no doubt that the majority of Scots voted for constitutional change.
In addition to the 45% who voted Yes, a significant number voting No had in mind the Unionist "vow" of extensive new powers for the Scottish Parliament made 48 hours before polling began.
The question, of course, is the nature of that change.
As we report today, a new Panelbase poll for the SNP suggests two-thirds of Scots want the "vow" to translate into devo max.
That means Holyrood would control all domestic matters, such as tax and the welfare system, with only foreign affairs and defence remaining reserved to Westminster.
That is a huge advance on the proposals set out by the Unionist parties before the referendum, particularly those of Labour and the Tories, and it is hard to see how the Commission chaired by Lord Smith of Kelvin could take those same parties so far in one bound.
However, it clearly shows where the public's aspirations lie. The Unionist parties cannot pretend otherwise and look away. They must align with the electorate.
Some Unionist politicians may be tempted to muddle through the Smith process to avoid controversy ahead of the General Election. Others may see it as a forum for pre-election feuding.
David Cameron exhibited this tendency when he tried to yoke the vow to English votes for English laws. That showed his instinct to put Tory advantage and Labour discomfort ahead of the right thing.
The referendum was an extraordinary event, and its aftermath an extraordinary time. Any party which fails to recognise that will be rightly punished by voters.
Our view is that as many powers as possible should accrue to Holyrood.
To quote Gordon Brown, "a system of government as close to federalism as you can have in a nation where one part forms 85% of the population" and which is in Scotland's interests.
People will no longer be satisfied by tinkering, by tweaks to income tax, or slivers of welfare reform.
Their vision requires a much larger canvas.
This newspaper is determined to ensure it is delivered.
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