Gareth Young reviews Where Stands the Union now? Lessons from the 2007 Scottish Parliament election by John Curtice, ippr.
(ippr, February 2008, 13pp)
New ippr report's use of polling data underplays Scottish and English dissatisfaction with the current Union settlement.
To begin Professor Curtice looks at Scotland's position in the Union, and he casts a critical eye over commercial polls that indicate significant support for independence. What is understood by 'independence' is crucial and he suggests that for many respondents 'independence' means greater autonomy within the Union, rather than separation.
This ambiguity is highlighted by a comparison between ICM's results (which show strong support for independence) and YouGov (whose results show weaker support). The ICM survey asks simply whether Scotland should, or should not, become an independent country, whereas the YouGov survey asks Scots to choose between retaining the present Scottish Parliament or becoming a completely separate state outside the UK.
Prof Curtice suggests why the YouGov poll showed much lower support for independence:
Some respondents might have been misled into thinking that Scotland would lose its existing parliament if the country were to leave the UK.
Turning his attention to English public opinion Prof Curtice casts doubt over the commercial polls that show support for an English parliament. Instead he gives preference to the British Social Attitudes (BSA) results which, according to Curtice, show that "every time the question has been asked, more than half have opted to leave things as they are now". A quick glance at the table does appear to back his assertion up.
Constitutional Preferences for England
With all the changes going on in the way different parts of Great Britain are run, which of the following do you think would be best for England?
2003
2004
2005
2006
England should be governed as it is now with laws made by the UK parliament
55%
52%
54%
54%
Each region of England should have its own regional assembly that runs services like health
24%
21%
20%
17%
England as a whole should have its own new parliament with law-making powers
16%
21%
18%
22%
And here, unfortunately, and perhaps through no fault of his own, Prof Curtice is complicit in propagating one of the great myths of British politics: That the English are content with the Status Quo.
In the accompanying IPPR paper (Kenny et. al.) it was stated that "there is evidence to suggest that in terms of public endorsement for available constitutional options, the status quo has been the most popular choice of the English". There is not.
A look at the commercial polls shows that the English are clearly not content with the Status Quo. In fact the commercial polls suggest that a large proportion of those apparently in favour of the Status Quo would actually, if given the choice, favour English Votes on English Laws. This is the solution that Curtice's academic peers describe as “an English Parliament in all but name” , “a de facto English Parliament”, a "parliament within a parliament" or the “slippery slope to" an English Parliament. Every single poll, except the BSA one preferred by Prof Curtice, shows a clear preference for some form of English parliament, be it a devolved parliament, a parliament within a parliament, outright independence, or a combination of the three.
To paraphrase Prof Curtice, the ‘wording is crucial’. The BSA question forces the English to make a choice between a *new* parliament for England, or Westminster (the place of English government since the 12thC). If the Scots were "misled" into thinking that Scotland would lose its existing parliament by the YouGov poll, then the BSA wording is misleading the English into believing that an English parliament has to be *new*.
In fairness to Prof Curtice he does not doubt that the English want a resolution to the democratic asymmetry that results in the West Lothian Question (which serves to underline the fact that they are not content with the Status Quo). And he does point out that we should not assume that the English will not opt for procedural changes to Westminster to resolve the unfairness:
Perhaps people in England would like Scotland's public spending advantage reduced and its MPs debarred from voting on 'English' laws?
My own, albeit anecdotal evidence, acquired from five years living in post-devolution Scotland, backs up Curtice's conclusion that the Scots would be happy with more devolution. Go to the pub and ask a Scot what he would prefer, and more likely than not he will cry "Freedom"; there is a little bit of William Wallace in every Scot. But ask again in the cold light of day and more often than not it is greater autonomy that is preferred.
Just as the Scots respond emotionally to the notion of independence – even if they are not prepared to vote for the reality - the English have an emotional attachment to Westminster. The Houses of Parliament are an English icon, ranked third in our national iconography, and in 2002 the building itself topped a poll of the Seven Wonders of Britain. The ghost of Walter Bagehot occupies the place in the English collective psyche that Wallace occupies in Scotland's imagination. Prof Curtice uses the word 'relatively' as a qualifier to say that the English are "relatively uninterested in devolution". Relative to whom, or what? According to opinion polls the public are also relatively uninterested in the EU, but that's not to say that the EU does not affect prominent public concerns and should not be addressed. There is certainly support for an English aspect to government but it is hampered by fealty to Westminster and misinformation and confusion about the pragmatism and benefits of English Votes on English Laws (the English are yet to understand that an English parliament WILL require devolved English government).
On the election of an SNP government I agree that it should not be read as indicative of support for independence; instead it signifies the unpopularity of Labour and a change in the way politics is conducted in Scotland, it is also testament to the cult of Alex Salmond. However, devolution-max for Scotland combined with England and Wales' quest for equity will put intolerable strains on the Union. The Status Quo is not an option.
This is the second of two reviews by Gareth on the new ippr reports on the future of the Union. Read the first review here. Gareth is a member of the Campaign for an English Parliament.
