A week ahead of the vote, Charlie Jeffery asks what next if no? For what next if yes, see here.

If Scotland votes No next week it will be, as far as the opinion polls can foretell, a narrow victory. Something close to half of the Scottish electorate will have voted to leave the union, leaving the No side with a much tighter margin of victory than many on that side would have expected.

If No does win, much of the credit for heading off the late surge to Yes will be given to the hardening of the pro-union offer of more devolved powers for Scotland. Curiously the choice for Scotland will have morphed into something like that which many advocated a couple of years ago: the choice between independence and if not devo-max, then certainly devo-more-than-now.

The late charge to firm up the No offer of more devolution makes it easier to envisage what will happen after a No vote than after a Yes. We know the legislative timetable: work would begin on more devolution on 19th September, an initial UK Government paper would be published by the end of October, opening up a consultation period set to inform the content of a White Paper on more devolution by the end of November.

A draft Scotland Bill would follow in January 2015 so that by the UK election in May 2015 a commitment to put that Bill into law would be part of the three pro-union parties' manifestos and - whichever party or coalition formed the next UK Government - a keystone of the first Queen's Speech of the new Parliament.

So far so clear - but plenty remains unclear. One question is the role the Scottish National Party would play in all this. Would it be invited to join in the debate shaping the new Scotland Bill? It might not want to of course, but it would still be a key player in the process because whatever the content of any draft legislation, it would need, following the precedent of what became the 2012 Scotland Act, to secure the consent of the Scottish Parliament. And the Scottish Parliament has an SNP majority at least until the next Scottish election in 2016.

A second question follows: how far does the timetable for reform factor in the Scottish legislative timetable? The Scottish Parliament would wish to review (and no doubt propose amendments to) the draft Bill prior to the UK election, put the Bill as introduced to the Westminster legislative process through full Holyrood scrutiny after the UK election, and - again following earlier precedent - reserve any final consent until the Bill had reached its final form at Westminster.

Plenty of opportunity here for the SNP to have its say. Plenty of scope too for the process to last long enough to be an issue in the May 2016 Scottish Parliament election.

That links to a third question: what reception would the content of the Bill have in Scottish opinion? The pro-union parties have not offered anything that goes beyond earlier, separate announcements by the three pro-union parties on the form of additional devolution. What they have done is firmed up a timetable.

So each party is still talking about its own set of proposals when it envisages what will be in the draft Scotland Bill. While the proposals have common ground around tax and welfare devolution, there are also differences of substance and principle. And there are (as or more importantly) differences within parties too. The relative modesty of Labour's proposals reflects differences within the party on devolution which remain unresolved. Equally, there have been signs of concern in Conservative ranks that the Conservatives' proposals offer Scotland too much (most notably expressed by Boris Johnson).

It remains to be seen how these internal differences play out amid the neat published timetable - especially if the proposed 'consultation' reveals a drive for proposals at the more extensive end of the range of available options - as, I suspect, any genuinely open consultation process would be likely to produce. So a fourth question is what kind of consultation is envisaged?

Detail is light here. Douglas Alexander last weekend floated something that sounded like a rather open process. Gordon Brown signalled something rather more exclusive - a rather tired-sounding convention of business leaders, trade unions and 'civic society'. It appears to be a case of rounding up the usual suspects.

But what has been striking about the referendum debate is how far it has extended beyond the 'usual suspects' and engaged ordinary citizens in their communities in a debate how they best can govern themselves. It is a shame that there appears to be no ambition to harness this engagement in developing the draft Scotland Bill. And it would be a danger too for the process. Whatever would emerge from this process would need to be seen to carry the consent of the people in Scotland. An old-style political fix led by grandees within and outside political parties now sounds so very 20th century.

Whatever emerged would also need to be recognised as appropriate for people in other parts of the UK. Richard Wyn Jones looks at some of the issues as seen from Wales and England in his blog today. That sets the final question if No wins: has anyone on the pro-union side of the debate in Scotland thought about how further devolution for Scotland can be delivered without unbalancing the political system elsewhere in the UK? Sadly, the answer is no-one has.