Should the UK devolve more powers to the Scottish Parliament?

The instinct on display here was less about the constitution in the abstract than about trust in the institution itself: asked whether Holyrood should get more to work with, the chamber said no by a clear two to one, a verdict that sits awkwardly against a Prime Minister who has just told Edinburgh that Westminster has failed it.

The sharpest fracture was between men and women rather than young and old: men were roughly split down the middle on the question, while women lined up heavily against, echoing a wider pattern in constitutional votes where women have tended to prize stability and predictability over further institutional change. Age told a messier story, with the youngest cohort the only group to back more powers with any conviction, while those in their thirties, forties and fifties — old enough to remember both the 2014 independence referendum and years of SNP government at Holyrood — were the most resistant of all.

The result lands squarely on the fault line that has run through UK politics since the 2014 vote and every devolution settlement since: whether more power for Edinburgh strengthens the union or merely funds the next argument for leaving it. Burnham's framing — that Westminster has let Scotland down — evidently did not translate into public appetite for handing Holyrood a bigger cheque and freer hand.

That scepticism was captured by the floor's most-respected No voice, who wrote of having "no confidence in their ability to wield more power well" — a verdict on record rather than principle. The top Yes case took the opposite tack, arguing devolution would "eventually stop the Mats from having anyone to blame but themselves," a wager that more responsibility would sharpen accountability rather than dilute it.

Burnham arrived in Glasgow talking of failure at Westminster; the chamber's answer was that the failure it doubts most is Holyrood's own.