CANS Wales and Scotland Richard Wyn Jones Wales

CANS: Wales and Scotland Richard Wyn Jones Wales Governance Centre Cardiff University

Context l Only W & S – no funding for England / English region l l i. e. no data on what we know least about Problematic in terms of thinking about solidarity etc. Thus far, we have done little analysis – enough to satisfy funder in W! Simple (simplistic? ) overview of key themes

Agenda 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Multi-level voting Support for ‘regionalisation’ Identification with / perceived significance of various scales Competencies The devolution paradox Territorial solidarity

Multi-level voting, CANS 2009 Cons Labour Lib. Dem NATS Others No vote DK/NA WALES Devo. UK 12 25. 6 23. 6 31. 8 5. 6 9. 3 20. 9 6. 3 3. 2 3. 0 6. 7 5. 8 28. 1 18. 2 SCOTLAND Devo. UK 6. 3 14. 2 23. 6 38. 5 5. 3 8. 5 36. 5 16. 3 2. 3 5. 1 5. 5 20. 8 14. 6

Which party best stands up for X? WALES SCOTLAND Con 6. 3 4. 6 Labour 21. 0 19. 9 Lib. Dem 3. 3 19. 9 NATS 32. 4 43. 4 Others 3. 1 1. 7 DK/NA 33. 7 28. 2

Constitutional Preferences WALES SCOTLAND No devo 9. 0 6. 9 Fewer powers 6. 3 4. 0 Status Quo 27. 6 More powers 41. 6 38. 9 Independence 13. 9 20. 0 DK/NA 1. 6 2. 5

Has / Should Have Most Influence? HAS SHOULD HAVE WALES SCOT Devolved 40. 1 38. 3 70. 3 73. 1 UK 49. 1 49. 2 25. 8 23. 0 EU 6. 2 7. 9 1. 7 1. 6 Other/ DK/NA 4. 8 4. 6 2. 2 2. 1

Identities & Perceived Significance of Scale l l Despite significant differences (demographic etc. ) ‘nested’ identities norm in W & S Neighbourhood and the two ‘national’ levels stand out in terms of attachment Local Authority and the two ‘national’ levels stand out in terms of perceived importance Of the two ‘national’layers, ‘regional’ level viewed in significantly more positive light than ‘state’ level.

National ID WALES SCOTLAND X not British 10. 7 19. 4 More X than Brit 28. 6 40. 8 Equally X & Brit 33. 4 25. 9 More Brit than X 9. 8 3. 8 British not X 15. 2 6. 7 Other/DK/NA 2. 4 1. 6

Scales and Attachment, % VERY attached Locality L. A. WALES /SCOT UK Europe WALES 51. 4 24. 2 69. 3 49. 1 13. 6 SCOT 52. 8 27. 1 79. 9 43. 1 14. 4

Importance of decisions made, % VERY important LA Devolv ed UK Europ e WALE S 45. 2 46. 7 50. 0 19. 4 SCOT 51. 2 57. 7 52. 4 26. 2

“X doesn’t care much what people like me think”, % Agree Strongly and Agree Devolved UK Govt Euro. WALES 38. 9 51. 9 61. 3 SCOTLAND 34. 7 49. 1 66. 1

Location of Policy Competences? l In W & S public attitudes seem to mirror perceptions of the prevailing division of responsibilities. . .

Location of Policy Competences, Wales

Location of Policy Competences, Scotland

The Devolution Paradox. . . l l On the one hand, electorate supportive of devolution and want more of it. They also seem to be supportive of individual examples of policy divergence. . . However, on the other hand the electorate remains hostile to policy divergence (at the state level) per se.

Degree of desired policy divergence

Territorial Solidarity l l l Note limitations of data here. . . Wales is poor Perceptions of Scotland mixed No data on a donor region Nonetheless, strong sense of solidarity in evidence in W & S

Perceptions of relative prosperity compared to rest of UK WALES SCOTLAND Better 9. 1 37. 1 Worse 39. 6 24. 3 No different 48. 6 34. 9 DK/NA 2. 8 3. 7

Territorial Solidarity