Reaction matters in politics - and it matters substantially with regard to the Calman Commission, which has published its report on devolution.
When the commission's interim report was published, one political leader, Tavish Scott of the LibDems, was notably sniffy.
His exceptionally brief statement indicated to all the world that up with this he would not put. He wanted detail - radical detail.
Mr Scott was smiling this morning post the launch at the Dynamic Earth.
Devolved control of four taxes - and substantial devolved involvement in setting income tax.
Now the actual power contained in the income tax proposal may be somewhat less than meets the instant eye.
For one thing, Scotland could not vary the tax balance. Could not, for example, choose, politically, to heap added taxation upon the well-heeled.
The differential between standard and upper rates would remain set.
Plus, Scotland might simply leave well alone - choosing to reinstate the 10p tax removed at outset by the Treasury.
But there's that word choice. Scotland's politicians would have to make their choice and declare the outcome of that decision.
That's why Mr Scott was smiling. Labour also looked notably content. They believe they have justified their decision to follow Wendy Alexander's initial suggestion that devolution needed substantial review.
As to others, I believe the business sector may well need convincing as to why Holyrood should have more influence on tax.
However, those with business experience on the commission believe they got the balance right, given the pressure.
Which leaves me to comment upon the SNP and the Tories - each of which is notably intriguing.
The Tories hope and, frankly, expect to form the next UK Government.
Listening and understanding
They have taken Calman exceptionally seriously. More, David Cameron has taken a direct personal interest.
Why? If he is to be PM, David Cameron knows that he will require to govern with only, at best, a handful of MPs from Scotland.
He needs a framework which enables him to say that he has listened, he understands, he responds.
He needed a think tank, while in opposition, to draft detailed plans. Calman supplies just that.
Idologically, the Tories support the concept of taxation allied to representation. As a party, they could argue, if they chose, for lower taxation in Scotland.
And the SNP? They argue the real benefit for Scotland lies in fiscal autonomy and independence.
They point out that a Scotland with charge of oil resources over the decades could have matched Norway in setting up an investment fund.
The Calman Commission is decidedly delphic on the topic of oil.
Joy of speculation
There is minimal reference to it in the executive summary. On Page 96, we learn it might be "attractive to speculate" how such oil revenues could have been added to the Scottish budget.
Being wicked, I invited Sir Kenneth Calman to add to the joy of such speculation when he launched the report. He declined.
Instead, the commission's point is that both the costs and benefits of oil have been shared down the decades - and that oil is now a declining and volatile asset upon which it would have be unwise to found a devolved budget.
Not surprisingly, the SNP jib at this. However, it is intriguing to note the SNP's response is, on balance, notably more measured.
They fielded the wit and wisdom of Michael Russell at the launch itself. He duly excoriated the lack of oil wealth and the absence of fiscal autonomy.
However, he went on to say the Nationalists welcomed anything which added to Scotland's powers - and assisted the people of Scotland.
Against that background, they were willing to look seriously at Calman.
Does that mean consensus? Not for a second.
As I have written repeatedly, you do not solve a fundamental difference over the future of the union by a group hug and a few quiet words.
But it means just perhaps that Sir Kenneth's report will do more than moulder on a shelf in two parliaments, simultaneously.