Any account of devolution in the UK since 1997 must start by providing some important preliminary contexts to analysis. This chapter is concerned with three. First, devolution across the UK was a hugely significant political event, which can only really be appreciated by placing it into historical context. Accordingly, section one fulfils the initial responsibility to briefly outline the historical background of the UK state, the nations that have composed it as a territorial union, and previous debates about self-government and devolution. Second, devolution has also stimulated considerable research, though so far there has been a neglect to summarise and critically appraise the literature. The focus in this book is on organising perspectives for understanding devolution as a whole. So section two offers a summary and appraisal of some key contributions which have helped to develop such overarching analysis. Cumulatively, the argument is made that they have developed what we can understand as a range of constitutional schools of analysis. They are particularly important for the fact that they have also produced what has become a set of conventional wisdoms. These are: first, the relative empowerment of the identity politics of the UK's stateless nations which made devolution essential; second, the perceived inadequacy of the subsequent devolution settlements viewed from Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish and English perspectives; and third, the perceived failure of UK governments to properly address the territorial reform of the state as a whole, intergovernmental relations, and the management of devolution.

Finally, the approach adopted in this book needs to be justified. To do so, section three subjects the assumptions inherent in constitutional approaches to critical appraisal and lays the basis for a fresh approach. It argues that the common characteristic of dominant constitutional perspectives is that they have privileged the importance of ideas in the study of politics and have neglected the role of interests and constraints. This has produced disputed analyses between writers who have different ideal starting points, and accounts of what happened that are either limited in coverage or appreciation of what was possible. In considering alternative approaches to study, a case is made for pursuing a realist approach that focuses instead on the power politics underpinning the advent and early implementation of devolution.