Popular pressure for further fiscal devolution from Westminster to Holyrood is less a matter of wanting to pursue a different policy agenda, says David Eiser, and more a matter of who the electorate trusts

Eiser, David

LSE Research Online

By Democratic Audit UK 2015-8-26In Scotland, public appetite for further fiscaldecentralisation is fuelled by greater levels of trust inHolyrood than in Westminsterdemocraticaudit.com /2015/08/26/in-scotland-public-appetite-for-further-fiscal-decentralisation-is-fuelled-by-greater-levels-of-trust-in-holyrood-than-in-westminster/Popular pressure for further fiscal devolution from Westminster to Holyrood is less a matter of wanting to pursue adifferent policy agenda, says David Eiser, and more a matter of who the electorate trusts. Credit: First Minister of Scotland, CC BY NC 2.0It has often been argued that further powers over taxes and welfare spending should be devolved to the ScottishParliament because Scots have a different set of preferences for public services than people in the rest of the UK.This argument is often presented as a compelling case for further fiscal devolution to Holyrood. There is actuallyrather limited evidence that Scots are clamouring for significant changes in tax and welfare rates but they quitedefinitely want to see the powers over them devolved. This naturally raises a question of why a nation would want apower if not to use it. The answer would seem to be one of trust.My colleague David Bell and I examined data on political attitudes in Scotland and the rest of Great Britain (rGB)from the British Social Attitudes (BSA) Survey, which covers England, Scotland and Wales. The BSA Survey asksrespondents whether they agree with a variety of statements about their political views, such as ‘ordinary people donot get their fair share of the nation’s wealth’. Based on responses, the BSA survey develops an index of politicalattitude, which ranges from 0 (extreme left-wing) to 5 (extreme right-wing). The results of this survey suggest thatthere is no statistical difference between Scotland and rGB in terms of the average score on this index.What about attitudes to welfare more specifically? Based on questions such as ‘The government should spendmore money on welfare benefits for the poor, even if it leads to higher taxes’, the BSA points at similar conclusions.Although Scots do appear to be slightly more sympathetic to welfare than people in rGB, the difference is small, notstatistically significant and has not widened since the questions were first asked in 2001.1/2Despite evidence of only slight difference in attitudes between Scotland and rGB, what is undeniable is thesignificant demand among Scots for further fiscal devolution to Holyrood. A survey of 1,300 Scots commissioned bythe Centre on Constitutional Change in the aftermath of the independence referendum showed that 60% of Scotswant the State Pension fully or partially devolved, 70% think unemployment benefits should be devolved, and lessthan one third of Scots think that taxes such as income tax, corporation tax and VAT should remain solely underWestminster control.How can we explain this desire for fiscal devolution when there is apparently so little difference in political attitudes?To explore this further, our own survey asked 1,300 Scots if they would like to see various tax and benefit leversdevolved to Holyrood and how they would like to see them used if they were.In each case, the majority of people thought that tax and benefit rates should remain the same if they were devolvedto Holyrood. Strikingly, even among those who were in favour of devolving a given tax or benefit lever to Holyrood,the majority did not want to see a change in rate following devolution.So the evidence from attitudinal surveys poses a puzzle. There is considerable desire for fiscal decentralisation toScotland, but little evidence for differences in preferences broadly, nor much appetite for deviation from current UKpolicy norms.Does this undermine the case for fiscal devolution to Holyrood? No, because there is another set of argumentsaround the case for fiscal devolution. This set of arguments relates to issues of political accountability and control.Repeated surveys show that Scots place higher levels of trust in the Holyrood Parliament than the WestminsterParliament. Part of the reason for this is that Scottish voters think they are more able to influence the policydecisions of Holyrood compared to the Westminster Parliament, in which they have a more partial stake. In this light,the desire for further fiscal decentralisation can be seen as form of insurance, against the risk that future UK policychanges in a way in which the Scottish electorate does not support.Even if a devolved tax or benefit remains unchanged, the very fact of keeping the policy unchanged is a choice thatthe Scottish Government has made and is answerable for. Scots want Holyrood’s accountability to match the levelsof trust they place in it, even if they support the policy status quo in the immediate future.The argument for fiscal decentralisation on the grounds of accountability is more subtle, and harder to make, thanone based on differences in preferences for policy. But it is no less compelling.—This post represents the views of the author and not those of Democratic Audit. Please read our commentspolicy before posting. —David Eiser is a Research Fellow at the University of Stirling. His Centre on ConstitutionalChange profile can be found here.2/2

In Scotland, public appetite for further fiscal decentralisation is fuelled by greater levels of trust in Holyrood than in Westminster

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online