When the Scottish Parliament was officially opened by the Queen in 1999 the expectations from many in Scotland were high.

Donald Dewar's passionate speech that day proclaimed that a new era of democratisation of Scottish politics was about to begin. Perhaps,however, most of his listeners were more concerned about whether devolution would make life better for themselves and their families.

For some years their hopes were to be frustrated.The Labour /Lib Dem coalitions led successively by Henry McLeish and Jack McConnell rarely rose above the semi-mediocre.The McLeish administration was especially dire and attracted vocal criticism not only about the leadership but also the modest calibre of some of the MSPs who now populated the new Parliament.

The McConnell regime is remembered for the introduction of the ban on smoking in public places and proportional representation in ‎local authority elections. Both has an impact and, among other factors, PR in council elections brought to an end the hegemony of McConnell's own party in local administrations across central Scotland.

Yet, 'Jack the Lad's mantra was to do less better and soon he was labelled the John Major of Scottish politics. There was little excuse for the inertia other than lack of nerve or ambition. After all,at this stage resources were overflowing in the coffers of the Scottish Executive due to the largesse of the Barnett Formula.

Frustrated expectations with the years of coalition politics was one factor in the remarkable electoral success of the SNP in 2007.There was a yearning in the land for bolder government and also reassurance that devolution had been worth all the trouble and expense which it had entailed.

Evaluation of devolution since then is difficult to separate out from judgement on the performance of the SNP which has been in power during the last thirteen years of devolved administration.‎ The key questions are how far has the government prosecuted a different agenda from Westminster and to what extent has that been to the benefit of the Scottish people and their own aspirations?

The proverbial curate's egg, good in parts but not in all, comes to mind when these questions are considered. The abolition of tuition fees and prescription charges together with the provision of free personal care have been widely popular,t hough some critics take the view that they are too skewed to the benefit of the middle classes.

Those of nationalist persuasion should note that devolution helped to make possible the referendum of 2014 and also any which might take place in the future. A legally constituted and elected forum in Edinburgh was a precondition for articulating political demands for a vote on independence as well as agreeing procedures with the UK government in order to make it happen.

Innovative green energy policies were introduced and an explicitly different and more positive approach to immigration emerged from that of the UK government. Of course this is an area reserved to Westminster control, but the message has gone out that Scotland considered inward migration as a benefit to the country. Initial steps have been taken on the old issue of land reform with a series of successful community buyouts. But devolution has yet to deliver radical change. An eminent historian once described how Irish landownership was put through 'the mincing machine of fundamental land reform' in the 1890s. Over a century later that has not yet taken place in Scotland, a country with the most concentrated patterns of landownership in Europe.

No devolved government could have fully protected Scotland from the harsh winds of Westminster-inspired austerity but the effort has been made to try and lessen the impact. In addition neo-liberal policies in the public services, and notably in the NHS, have been rejected in accord with the preferences of most of the Scottish people.

The comparative attainment levels of Scottish pupils in global league tables of numeracy and literacy remain of concern and the academic jury is still out on the so-called Curriculum for Excellence. The report card on school education has to read 'try harder'. It would be wonderful if in time our schools achieved the same success in these international measures several of the country's great universities have already done in their spheres.

The really big challenges of social inequality and the moral unacceptability of the scandalous incidence of child poverty in parts of the country have yet to be tackled:can this be done with any hope of success within the limited powers of devolution?Sometimes the Parliament has also followed some false trails,for instance continuing to obsess about the fading chimera of 'sectarianism' while until recently giving much less attention to the scandalously high levels of domestic abuse in our society.

Therefore, in answer to the two questions posed earlier, devolution has indeed allowed Scotland to develop policies much more in tune with the preferences of then people and some though not all have been implemented with a considerable degree of success. The country of 2019 would be a different place if devolution had not been introduced 20 years ago.

The majority of Scots have now developed a strong bond with the Parliament. Only some members of the electorate with Conservative leanings are less enthusiastic. The systematic analyses of opinion contained in the regular Scottish Social Attitudes surveys add evidential weight to this conclusion. Most of the people trust Holyrood more than Westminster, even before the current Brexit debacle, both in working for Scotland's best interests and listening to the views of the people before arriving at major decisions.

Therefore, as the distinguished sociologist, Professor David McCrone, has asserted, 'Abolishing the Parliament is unthinkable…Reducing its powers unimaginable'. In its 20th anniversary year,it is here to stay.