In the long term
To be clear, there are - quite deliberately - no conclusions in the interim Calman Report.
However, it is arguably possible to detect tone. That tone is notably Unionist.
Given that the remit was to secure Scotland within the Union, that is no surprise whatsoever.
However, we can, I think, go a little beyond that.
If we consider attitudes towards devolution within the Union, we can perhaps consider a spectrum ranging from maximum Scottish autonomy to cautious entrenchment based broadly upon the current powers.
I believe that, within that spectrum, it is presently possible to place the first Calman report towards the cautious end.
The identified scope for devolution of further powers is notably limited. It is at the margins - by which I do not mean it is sidelined but rather that it straddles the points where devolved and reserved powers interact.
Who is happy?
If you doubt my assessment as to the inherently cautious nature of the report, just ask yourself about the reaction of the various political parties who set up the review.
In particular, ask yourself: who is happiest today, the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats?
The Tory response notes with approval the willingness of Team Calman to rule out changes which would be incompatible with the Union, while also seeking further measures to stress the value of that Union.
The Lib Dems? A notably terse response from Tavish Scott saying that Calman is "where Scotland is now".
He then goes on to advocate a strengthened Scottish Parliament, what he calls "a real Home Rule settlement".
For myself, I find the report intriguing. Frankly, I had not expected anything different in terms of firm decisions at this stage.
Firstly, because they said they would wait until next year. Secondly, because the Scotland Act 1998 was carefully drawn.
Within the ambit of devolution - note that caveat, please - it was always likely, if not guaranteed, that the scope for reform would be limited in a body set up by Labour and featuring the Conservatives.
No, the intriguing bit lies in the effort to generate an intellectual definition of the Union - and to analyse the impact of that upon devolved policy.
Calman starts from the standpoint of backing the economic union, the defence union, the monetary union and the diplomatic union.
Of greater interest are the views upon a socially integrated Union.
The report asks whether social provision - pensions, welfare, health, education - should be broadly identical from Cornwall to Caithness.
If yes, then that would constrain the potential for further devolution. Essentially, Calman is asking: at what point does social policy autonomy start to place strain upon the Union, thus defined? With free prescriptions in Scotland? With health charges in England? With welfare autonomy?
Again, at this point, he does not provide an answer - but invites further evidence.
However, one can see the emergence of an effort to provide a common perspective on social provision which would, arguably, limit further devolution.
And money? Calman endorses the view of the earlier submission by Professor Anton Muscatelli's team that it is critical to decide what form of devolution one wants then to design a funding system to suit.
My guess? They will go for some assignment of revenues in order to incentivise economic growth in Scotland and allow politicians to tell England that the extent of block grant north of the Border has been trimmed.
However, added to that, there will still be substantial grant equalisation - because it is only with such a system that one can maintain social equity.
And that means? A needs assessment and, quite possibly, a reduction in Scottish spending levels in the long, perhaps very long, term.