The simple reason for the prompt creation of devolved parliament in Edinburgh under Labour was the preceding 18 years of Tory rule. During that time Scotland returned an ever diminishing minority of Tory MPs, and the opposition parties were united behind the idea that Scotland could never again be wholly governed by a party it did not vote for.

The Labour and Liberal Democrat parties had both had home rule for Scotland on their policy books for the previous 100 years, but it was only the growing resentment felt by Scots under successive conservative administrations that gave the policy an irresistible momentum. Labour had tried to introduce it in the 1970s but failed, and it was still regarded as "unfinished business" in the words of the late John Smith.

Adding to Labour's urgency was the Scottish National party. They interpreted the Conservative years as proof that Scotland and England were essentially different political entities and the best thing would be if Scotland were independent. The unionist Labour party hoped that devolution would pull the rug out from such claims and ensure Scotland's continued membership of the United Kingdom.

Few constitutional changes of such magnitude can have taken place so smoothly. Labour was elected in May 1997 and by September 11th a referendum was held on the principle of a devolved parliament. Of votes cast, 80 per cent said yes, with only slightly less agreeing to limited tax raising powers for the parliament. The elections to the parliament were held in May 1999 and the parliament officially opened on July 1st. A century's worth of argument rushed to a close.

It has become cliche of Scottish politics to observe that the constitutional question was chiefly the obsession of the chattering classes, while most voters were more concerned about jobs and the health service. As a result of the great interest shown by academics, civic leaders and journalists in devolution, Scotland's parliament was not simply envisaged as a new layer of government, but as a new way of governing.

The new chamber being built next to the Royal Palace at Holyrood in Edinburgh deliberately eschews a confrontational design like the benches of the House of Commons. Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) sit in a horseshoe chamber. The rest of the building is intended to be as open and accessible to the public as possible.

The bricks and mortar of Holyrood, as the parliament has become known, are meant to be the physical representation of a new attitude. The fact Scots consistently voted in large numbers for the Labour party in the 1980s and 1990s while a Conservative government was yet returned to Westminster highlighted the unfairness of Britain's voting system. For the first time proportional representation was used to elect MSPs.

Of 129 representatives, 73 are elected in the traditional constituency-based first-past-the-post method. Voters have a second vote though, which they cast for regional party lists. These lists are designed to provide representation for those parties that have missed out on the first vote.

Immediately Scotland was forced to learn a new way of governing, as Labour won the most seats but not enough for an outright majority. In a country used to single-party rule, the new parliament has begun with a coalition as Labour work beside the Liberal Democrats.

The parliament has also been designed to ensure that all power does not rest with the executive. There are eight policy committees, separate from the government and accountable only to parliament, which can scrutinise and initiate legislation.

Scotland retains her full complement of Westminster MPs and equal rights in the British government. The Secretary of State for Scotland still sits in the Cabinet. This has given rise to the "English question", namely, why do the Scots have the extra representation of a parliament when the English don't?

Like any operation of this scale, the transition from theory to practice has not always been smooth. Parties must play a dual role of ensuring the institution is established with credibility, while also going about their day-to-day politicking with the usual armoury of insults and tricks. The initial press coverage has been overwhelmingly negative, and this is known to worry senior politicians.

To understand some of devolution's problems, it is necessary to remember that the parliament was promised as a salve to the many aggravations of the previous two decades. That it hasn't been able to deliver immediate solutions is seen as a betrayal of those promises.

But Holyrood has limited powers. Control over the economy still rests with Westminster, as does social security. Holyrood simply does not have the authority to change living standards radically.

Westminster also retains control over defence and foreign policy. Edinburgh may have a parliament, but she does not have the access to international representation, most crucially in Europe, which her farmers and fishermen in particular would like.

Holyrood can legislate on health, education, the law, some aspects of transport, enterprise, agriculture and tourism. These are the functions that were always administered separately by the Scottish Office, the wing of the Whitehall civil service dedicated to Scotland. However Holyrood is constrained by money.

The British treasury funds the parliament with a lump sum known as the Scottish Bloc. It is worth £14.5 billion sterling per annum. The vast bulk of that money is already assigned to the health service and civil servants' pay, leaving politicians with only limited room for manoeuvre.

Given the political fashion to cut taxes, the Labour party will not use the limited tax varying powers of 3p in the pound granted to the parliament. The result is that the parliament is already seen as ineffectual when faced with the crisis in farming, for example.

The First Minister of the parliament, Labour's Donald Dewar has said Holyrood will "develop". It is thought that the power to legislate over broadcasting may move to Edinburgh from the Westminster parliament. Labour's dilemma is that if they make Holyrood too powerful, Scots might go the whole hog to independence.

The SNP are committed to "making the parliament work" but still aim for Scotland's independence. Their dilemma is that if devolution settles down successfully, then Scots might go no further.

Some Conservatives, despite an historical opposition to any constitutional change that threatens the union, now favour Holyrood acquiring full fiscal powers. They believe the current arrangement gives power without financial responsibility.

The truth is that Scotland's politicians are swimming in new waters, unsure where the current will take them.