All studies of territorial politics recognise the underlying importance of a cultural identity underpinning the construction and/or expression of territorial claims. It is simply that a strong vein of literature looks outside the assumption that there is a linear relationship between the expression of cultural identity and the political development of ideas of sovereignty and constitutional rights. Realist approaches recognise that there is an inherent politics to the development of group interests and the mobilisation of territorial support, whether it be for the development of states or sub-state territorial units (Rothschild, 1981). The rational and intentional behaviours of groups do not take over completely, but they are a significant dimension of how territorial interests are actually led and articulated, what strategies and forms of mobilisation are developed, and how the goals to be pursued are defined (Rothschild, 1981; Barreto, 2009).

Approaching analysis within these terms provides us with a fresh opportunity to understand how, why and with what implications devolution happened. It foregrounds analysis of political actors central to the development of devolution operating within specific institutional contexts, developing courses of action in accord with their interests but taking into account ‘the constraints and circumstances they face’ (Gamble, 1990:410). This approach privileges analysis of political elites seeking territorial outcomes in challenging contexts; the motivations of party elites focused on electoral success and political power; and government and bureaucratic elites focused on maintaining competent and effective government. It builds in assumptions that action is driven by power politics, where ideas are part of the currency of contestation, and asks questions about how such contestation is being steered, the nature of political management, and where the real sources of power lie.

In seeking such an approach to the study of how and why devolution was introduced in the UK in the way that it was, the prime candidate to work from is Bulpitt, whose book Territory and Power in the United Kingdom (1983) pioneered a realist territorial politics approach to studying UK political development. The value of working from Bulpitt is twofold. First, there is an enormous complexity in the issues that researchers try to take account of in assessing territorial politics; this can lead to unwieldy conceptual frameworks which are hard to operationalise. Bulpitt's is a relatively parsimonious framework of analysis.