After 292 years - we meet again: Campbell Leggat returns to the land of his birth to find out what Scotland's new parliament could mean for Scotland and the UK.

It was just after 9.30 am on Wednesday, 12 May 1999. The 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament, who had been elected the previous Thursday, gathered together in the chamber of their temporary home, the Assembly Hall on the Mound in Edinburgh. In order to elect a Presiding Officer (Speaker), the 69-year-old mother of the house, Winifred Ewing, was in the chair. Then, as The Scotsman reported on its front page the following morning, `She uttered the astonishing truth: "The Scottish Parliament, adjourned on the 25th day of March, 1707, is hereby reconvened."' In the public gallery, and throughout Scotland, where people were watching the proceedings live on TV, there was many a tear in the eye regardless of background or political loyalty.

So why is it that after almost 300 years Scotland has its own parliament again? Is it a body with real powers to legislate for the everyday lives of the people? Or just a `talking shop' to appease national sentiment? And is it a welcome step in the devolution and decentralization of power and decision making needed within the United Kingdom as a whole--or is it, as many have feared, part of an unpleasant and costly disintegration of the United Kingdom, fuelled by feelings of antagonism and resentment, and drawing on the unhealed wounds of history? Searching for answers to these questions I recently met a wide range of people in Scotland.

As with most countries, there are a number of versions of Scotland's history. There is even the Hollywood version powerfully portrayed in the Oscar-winning film Bravedheart. Hollywood tends to be more interested in box-office returns than in facts, and Bravedheart is no exception. But for a younger generation, many of whom are unfamiliar with the novels of Sir Walter Scott or with modern Scottish historians, such a movie can fan the flames of resentment as well as national pride.

Most historians take the view that on the whole the Union since 1707 has been beneficial for all those who make up mainland Britain. Initially it was not popular in Scotland, and indeed the first half of the 18th century saw various attempts to overthrow the Hanoverians and restore the Scottish Stuarts to the British throne. These reached a climax with the unsuccessful Jacobite Rebellion of 1745, launched around the charismatic figure of Bonny Prince Charlie and ending with the Battle of Culloden. It has often been portrayed as Scots versus English but was more accurately a civil war of Catholic Jacobite Stuarts and their supporters (mostly the Highland clans) versus Protestant Hanoverians and their supporters, who included many of the Lowland Scots and the most powerful clan, the Campbells.

Following Culloden the clans that had supported the Jacobite cause were brutally suppressed and there were ruthless `clearances' of crofters to make way for sheep. However being part of a United Kingdom enabled the majority, and especially Lowland Scots, to benefit more from the Industrial Revolution and the expansion of the British Empire. The latter point is illustrated by Ben Macintyre's estimate in The Times that the Scottish diaspora now numbers about 100 million, while only 5.3 million live in Scotland.

More recently the shared comradeship of two world wars, and the sacrifices involved in defeating fascism, have held the Union together and built common cause. But throughout these three centuries Scotland has retained its own sense of nationhood with its own legal, education and religious systems. Post-war Britain, with the loss of Empire and the search for a new role within Europe, created a very different atmosphere. By the 1960s devolution of political power was on the agenda. The first attempt to carry this forward in the Seventies failed.

The decisive swing in public opinion towards support for a Scottish parliament seems to have come during the Thatcher years. Whatever else was achieved, the policies of Mrs Thatcher and her governments towards Scotland seem to have convinced the majority of the Scottish people that they needed their own parliament. A great many of those I talked to, from a wide cross section of opinion, are in agreement on this point.

Impressive grassroots participation and consultation preceded the setting up of the new parliament. Following the referendum of 1997, in which the vote was almost three to one in favour of devolution, an independent project under the title `People & Parliament' was established by 11 ordinary citizens. In 1998 they distributed 28,000 leaflets inviting people from all over Scotland to share their vision of what the country's future should be like. It took the form of a questionnaire addressing three issues: 1 `We are a people who ...' 2 `By the year 2020 we would like to see a Scotland in which ...' 3 `We therefore expect our parliament to work with people in ways which ...'

An enormous variety of people took part--some 450 groups in all--and a remarkable consensus emerged. This could be summarized as: a deep frustration with fragmented society; a feeling of anger and disconnection with the present system of government and politics; a profound longing for a new kind of politics and society that will listen to, care for, respect and share with, all the people--rooted in a strong sense of national identity and community; a belief that the people of Scotland must take responsibility for their own destiny--and mistakes--and overcome the tendency to blame others; a strong desire for a better society and community, which was constantly linked with the need for greater participation and partnership in power.

The full report, which quotes many of the responses, makes colourful reading. Addressing the first question a group in Falkirk wrote: `We drink too much alcohol, are both defeatist and creative.' While a group in Nairn commented, `We see all humanity as our brothers and sisters ... Mind you, some of us are narrow-minded, tight-fisted parasites.' A group of teenagers in a one-time fishing and mining area of Fife wrote. `We are a people who live in a dull depressing country with no opportunities of jobs, and there's not much to do.' Others were more positive `We should expand our international financial skills.'

Question two produced many `wish lists' including one from a Glasgow group which included `a quality of life where everyone has someone to love, something to do and something to look forward to'.

On the third question the common thread which ran through the responses was that this parliament should be different--open, accessible and accountable; `Adversarial politics to be buried and diversity welcomed'; `Representatives should reflect the people not the party.

So are there signs of hope that things can be different? The new MSPs clearly carry a wealth of goodwill, but also an enormous burden of expectation. Some who have already been MPs bring the best of the Westminster traditions with them; others are clearer on how they want to do things differently. The majority have never been members of a parliament. The average age is relatively young with some in their twenties and many in their thirties.

Refreshingly, the Scottish Parliament has been constituted in a way that should allow members to have time for family life. In so far as possible, business will take place within normal working hours and there will be a recess during school holidays.

There is also the opportunity to rethink Westminster's tradition of starting each day with the same person reading the same prayer (while members `face the wall so that their swords don't damage the furniture').

It is ironic that the Conservative Party--which opposed devolution during the 1997 General Election campaign and lost all the seats they had formerly held in Scotland--have now won eight seats in the Scottish Parliament because of proportional representation, a system they had opposed.

While the Labour Party won the largest number of seats (56), they do not have an overall majority and have formed a coalition with the Liberal Democrats (17 seats). This should ensure a more consensual style of government than is normal in Britain.

The Scottish National Party, whose policy is total independence rather than devolution, won 35 seats. Polls show that only 29 per cent of the voters want complete independence. But the fact that the majority of SNP supporters are aged from 18-34 causes many to wonder about the future.

An optimistic view of where all this could lead came from an Englishman, Clifford Longley. He wrote in The Tablet a few days after the Scottish election: `The next phase in Scotland's story is an exciting experiment in governance, which, if successful, will transform the future of all of Britain.... Coalition government is about gaining consent by negotiation and compromise, especially the consent of those who are free to withhold it.... This ... is bound to have its influence in England ... It will also change the way the English feel about national sovereignty.'