DR Neil McGarvey is a Lecturer in Politics at the University of Strathclyde and co-author of Scotland's leading textbook on Scottish Politics.

Here he gives his analysis of the referendum.

A FEW days ago, speaking on the BBC, Patrick Harvie, Green Party Leader said that the referendum campaign had been a triumph of democracy, whatever the result.

He was spot on.

The turnout of 84.5% is an astonishing total in this era of declining faith, trust, participation and engage-ment in politics.

The official campaign between Yes Scotland and Better Together, as well as the more unofficial spontaneous grassroots campaigning, canvassing, leafleting, debating, street level orations was a vivid example of real democracy in action.

It was enthralling.

Just as the Common-wealth Games was a great advert for the vibrancy of Glasgow and Scotland, the referendum was a great advert for a renewal of the spirit of democracy and political engagement in Scotland.

The campaign was vibrant and engaging. It has people talking about politics in homes, work-places, bars, clubs, taxis, community halls, Face-book, Twitter, everywhere.

It was a level of engagement in politics that Scotland has not witnessed since the post-war generation.

At that time the welfare state was created and decisions were made that defined what type of society the United Kingdom was to become. Similarly, Thursday's vote will define the agenda of Scottish politics for years to come.

The Union with the rest of the UK has survived for 307 years - it was tested by the upheaval of the industrial revolution, the politics of the Empire, two world wars.

On Thursday it emerged intact from Scotland's referendum. The 55%-45% vote was a decisive victory for the No campaign. David Cameron on Friday morning, borrowing the late John Smith's phrase from two decades ago, referred to devolution as "the settled will of the Scottish people".

It is difficult to disagree with that. Twenty-eight of Scotland's 32 council areas had a majority in favour of No - only Dundee, Glasgow, North Lanarkshire and West Dunbartonshire (notably all home to some of Scotland's most deprived communities) voted Yes.

NOW that the argument is over and the Scottish people have spoken both camps must now set aside any rancour, bitterness and resentment that they feel about the campaign and its outcome.

One side had to lose -referendums are zero-sum games. Everyone must accept the result and work in good faith.

The people have spoken and they have decided that the sovereignty of Scotland should remain at UK level.

However, it is also clear the people of Scotland want more governing autonomy - a key strand of the Better Together campaign was the promise of increased powers for the Scottish Parliament.

As things stand any decision about the extent of that autonomy still resides in the hands of Westminster and the outcome of the 2015 General Election.

David Cameron has utilized the Scottish referendum to resurrect the "English votes, for English laws" agenda.

Many Welsh and Irish politicians continue to lobby for more powers in their devolved institutions.

The agenda of further constitutional change is now firmly on the agenda across the UK as a whole.

In a sense every vote on Thursday was a vote for more powers.

These powers must now be delivered.

Gordon Brown's intervention late in the campaign was an argument for a modern form of home rule. That must now be delivered and it must be better than the incremental adjustment his own party's commission offers.

If Labour risks going into next year's UK General Election and the 2016 Scottish Parliamentary Election with its present constitutionally conserv-ative offer, it may struggle to sell itself as a party standing up for Scotland.

The agenda of Scottish politics has been driven by the SNP since 2007.

Independence has been decisively rejected. However, the agenda will now quickly move on to how much more power should be devolved.

On one end will be a maximalist devolution option favoured by the SNP, at the other Labour's more incremental adjustment.

The parameters of that debate will now exclude the independence option, but the status quo is not an option on any party's agenda.