There is no doubt that the timetable for agreeing plans on further Scottish devolution is tight.

Recommendations must be agreed by the end of November, with draft legislation on the table by the end of January 2015 and implementation after the 2016 General Election.

There has been no time to lose: less than a calendar month on from the referendum, all the parties have already submitted their proposals and the chairman of the Commission on Scottish Devolution, Lord Smith, reports that he has received more than 4,000 submissions from members of the public.

Understandably, some politicians and constitutional experts are raising concerns about the speed with which these complex matters are to be debated and agreed, and the danger that the resulting legislation will end up flawed so that it has to be revisited at a later date.

Yet it must be borne in mind that this is not the first serious consideration to be given to these proposed changes. Much of the deliberative work has already taken place on the part of at least three of the parties concerned. For instance, the Scottish Liberal Democrats, with their two successive committees on the topic, the Steel Commission and the Campbell Commission, have been considering the detail of further Scottish devolution for the last decade.

Such matters in Scotland are more developed than questions of constitutional reform affecting the rest of the UK, where the issue is only now coming to the fore after years as the preserve of political anoraks.

It should also be remembered that the timetable Lord Smith is working to is of the UK parties' making. Because of that timetable, a promise has been given and an expectation created that must not be ignored.

Even so, some MPs raise legitimate concerns. The former Northern Ireland Deputy First Minister, Mark Durkan, noted that the Good Friday Agreement was "too quickly privatised to the politicians", resulting in "implementation failure, stalling and frustration".

It has been The Herald's concern right from the start that the Scottish public and civic society should be fully involved in this process.

The danger of allowing the timetable to slip is that the Scottish people could take it as proof of an intention to renege on greater devolution; indeed, the public's lack of trust in the UK party leaders to deliver the promised new powers is underlined by a new TNS poll published today.

Nevertheless, the same poll also shows that Scottish voters are more politically engaged than ever.

It is very heartening to see that more than one-third of adults say they are more likely to vote in future, following the referendum.

Just under one-third also say they are more likely to get involved in public debates about political issues in future.

What that means is that, if there is any slippage, either from the timetable or delivering extensive devolution, politicians will have a re-energised voting public to answer to.