Most research on campaign effects in British elections has focussed on exposure to the campaign. Far less attention has been given to how the campaign is perceived, although American research on the effects of negative campaigning suggests that this is a potentially important area. The article investigates the extent to which vote choices in the 2007 Scottish Parliament election were affected by perceptions of the parties’ campaigns as ‘positive’ or ‘negative’. Partisanship and increased exposure to a party’s campaign increased individuals’ chances of rating a campaign positively. Other things being equal, however, campaigns which come to be seen in a negative light backfire on the party responsible, reducing the propensity of people to vote for it. Acknowledgement: The research reported in this paper was funded by a grant from the ESRC (REF 000-22-2256).

David Stewart's meticulously researched study of the background leading to devolution makes the familiar case that Margaret Thatcher was the midwife of devolution. What makes this study different is less the thesis than the details provided to back it up. Indeed, in some respects this is a very orthodox view, but it is one that is sustained by a wide range of evidence. The notion that 'Scottish civil society' rose up against a Government driven by a 'new right' ideology, with its roots in St Andrews University, has been well worn but rarely explored in a sustained way as here. This account will be fascinating for those new to the subject and will provoke memories for those who lived through it. There is ample empirical evidence on show. However, this reader has some nagging doubts about aspects of the main thesis, though not about the broader argument or the detailed empirical evidence.