A week is a long time in politics, Harold Wilson said. So it is probably unsurprising that the 52 weeks since the independence referendum have seen considerable change.

The Herald has launched a series of articles talking to key players in that referendum debate, from politicians to pollsters, campaign insiders and commentators, in a bid to analyse the people and policies which have helped shape Scotland since voters rejected independence.

By any standards this has been an unusually tumultuous 12 months in politics. A year ago, Nicola Sturgeon was merely an able deputy, not the political phenomenon she has become, and the Labour party had 41 MPs, dominating the Scottish portion of Westminster's green benches.

Now Labour appears to stand on the brink of an historic change of direction, one which may even lead to an irrevocable split in the party. Yet many see in the enthusiasm which Jeremy Corbyn's leadership campaign generated, a replication of the same fervour for change and desire for unspun politics which was manifested in the Yes Scotland campaign.

A year ago, there were fears of backtracking from the unionist parties in the days after the referendum vote.

Some in the No campaign may indeed have thought it could be business as usual after a respectful time had elapsed. Any such idea was spectactularly quashed by the SNP's overwhelming general election performance, which confirmed that while the majority did not vote for independence, most Scots are certainly looking for change.

In the latter stages of the referendum campaign we were urged to vote No for "faster, better, safer change". That was the basis of the Vow, and such sentiments helped cement the idea that neither side in the referendum was promoting the status quo.

The Herald too backed change. We said the existing union had fallen drastically out of step with Scotland's needs and aspirations. But we argued that transformative change could be sought by pursuing greater autonomy within the UK.

We stand by that view, but also by our view at the time that if the union could not deliver on the aspirations of this nation, an early second referendum would be likely if not inevitable.

Some of that change is, however, on the way. In supporting Scotland remaining in the UK this paper cited tax-raising powers and greater control of welfare as important elements of any new settlement.

The Scotland bill will deliver on these demands, to varying degrees. When passed early next year it will hand Holyrood unprecedented control over income tax, allowing a Scottish government to raise different amounts, or do it in more progressive ways. When, how and by whom these powers are used will now be a key question in next year's Holyrood elections.

As a whole, welfare remains reserved. The ability to pool resources to protect weaker citizens was among the better arguments for remaining in the union. However the power to vary elements of Universal Credit, for example, will leave Scotland unable to do much more than tinker at the margins. The scale of cuts to benefits and tax credits introduced by George Osborne risks damaging the social security system beyond repair.

David Cameron's English Votes for English Laws proposals address a legitimate question, but smack of ill-thought out political opportunism rather than a lasting constitutional settlement. There is a need to find a more considered solution, including replacing the undemocratic and outdated House of Lords, perhaps with a senate of the nations and regions.

Much has changed in a year. But the central issues remain the same. What is clear is that is that if the union is to survive, the devolutionary settlement has to keep moving and the pledges made to Scotland last year must continue to be fulfilled.