Introduction

When Scotland voted in favour of having its own parliament in the September 1997 referendum, it created an institution with two important attributes. First, in the areas over which it had responsibility at least, the Scottish Parliament would be able to determine public policy for Scotland irrespective of what might be happening in the rest of the UK. Scotland could now do things differently from England if it wanted to. Second, irrespective of whatever decisions it might make, the new parliament could be considered a symbolic recognition of Scotland's nationhood and an acknowledgement that its citizens’ sense of nationhood was no longer adequately encompassed by the multi-national ‘state’ nationalism of Britishness. Indeed, these two attributes were neatly brought together in the devolutionists’ rallying cry, ‘Scottish answers to Scottish questions’.

This dichotomy has been reflected in differing academic interpretations of why Scotland voted in favour of devolution. One interpretation has emphasised the importance of the instrumental arguments that were put forward in favour of devolution – that having a Scottish Parliament would improve the quality of decision making and thus the state of Scotland's economy, its hospitals and its schools (Surridge et al, 1998; Surridge and McCrone, 1999). It is argued that what most distinguished those who voted in favour of the parliament in September 1997 from those who did not was not whether they adhered to a Scottish rather than a British national identity, but rather whether they believed the new parliament would make a tangible improvement to Scotland's public services, its economy and its political process.

Others, in contrast, have preferred to give greater prominence to the argument that support for the Scottish Parliament was an expression of national identity (Curtice, 1999). While not denying that the perceived instrumental benefits of a Scottish Parliament played some role in persuading voters to back the new parliament, it is argued that there was also a clear and important relationship between national identity and willingness to vote ‘Yes’ in the referendum. In other words, support for the Scottish Parliament was indeed an expressive rather than just an instrumental act. Further support for this argument might be thought to have come from the fact that while expectations of the parliament have clearly fallen since 1997, support for the principle of a devolved parliament has not (Curtice, 2001a).