Scotland is no stranger to self-government. It has had a parliament since 1235, long before the union of Scottish and English parliaments in 1707. The legacy of that separate identity remains, for example, in Scotland's law and its education system. This tradition of independent thinking should continue following last week's elections to a new parliament in Edinburgh, Scotland, and a national assembly in Cardiff, Wales. The likelihood of coalition governments in both legislatures and a strong representation from political parties that want independence from the United Kingdom suggest that there could be exciting times ahead.

An area where fresh ideas are sorely needed is in the relationship between science and government, following the collapse in public confidence in official channels of science advice during the debacles over BSE and genetically modified food. Scientists need to encourage parliamentarians to develop a deeper awareness of the strengths and limitations of science, and to move away from the view that science is a fixed, unchanging body of knowledge, which can always be relied upon to underpin complex policy.

One of the biggest tests for both the Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly will be in the degree of pre-legislative scrutiny granted to the public and to special-interest groups.

They will also need to be responsive to the perception by the public of threats to the environment and health. To be fair, the UK government is well aware of these issues and will soon announce the results of its survey of public perceptions of the regulation of bioscience and biotechnology. These results are expected to feed into a parallel review of the government's many advisory committees.

While they seek to be creative, the new legislatures should not overlook some of the more successful aspects of the UK parliament at Westminster. One example is the science and technology select committee, which scrutinizes the work of the executive. In the context of many competing pressures from powerful interest groups, no modern assembly can afford to be without such a committee.

Many of the issues facing the new administrations — for example, the regulation of fish stocks or concentrations of airborne particulate matter — will have a strong scientific dimension. The Westminster parliament relies on its Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology for independent advice on these issues. The Scottish parliament, at least, will need an analogous mechanism.

Scotland has a significant number of strengths in science, and its researchers are at the forefront of UK government efforts to commercialize research (see page 97). The Royal Society of Edinburgh and the UK Scottish Office are right to recommend against a division of the UK research-council budget, as this would have left Scottish university researchers competing for fewer funds. Scotland's agricultural and biological research institutes, by contrast, are understandably less enthusiastic about the new funding arrangements. They will now have to lobby parliament for their budgets, when in the past they were funded directly by the Scottish Office. Some of their concerns, however, could be alleviated if the parliament chose to set up a smaller executive office of science and technology to distribute its own funds and to protect them from direct political control.

In 1457, the Scottish parliament decreed that golf and football were not appropriate forms of recreation for men under 60, and banned them in favour of archery, considered a more effective way of ensuring personal fitness and self-defence. The new parliament need not be so radical. But there is no reason why it cannot be innovative, not least in its dealings with science.