The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Influence on Government?

20. We noted in the introduction to this report that the devolved institutions were meant to be open and participative. If they have succeeded in achieving that aspiration then we would expect to find that people feel they can influence the policies and actions of the devolved institutions. They should feel that people have more say in how they are governed as a result of devolution, and that the devolved institutions are inclined to listen to people's views before they take decisions. We now examine how far this is the case.

21. As Table 5 shows, most people simply think that having a Scottish Parliament is not making any difference to how much say ordinary people are having in how they are governed. Moreover, this has consistently been the case over the last four years. But few think that the advent of devolution has reduced ordinary people's say in how they are governed - and those that do are vastly outnumbered by the substantial minority (over a third) who feel that ordinary people do now have more say. So amongst those who do think that devolution has made a difference, the balance of opinion is overwhelmingly in favour of the view that ordinary people do now have more say. It might be thought unreasonable to expect devolution to achieve any more than that.

Table 5 Perceived impact of having a Scottish Parliament on ordinary people's say in government, 2001-2005

22. But who thinks that ordinary people do now have more say? In particular is there any evidence that those who belong to groups that are less likely to be involved in the political process are especially likely to feel that devolution has made a difference? Our analysis of these questions begins in Table 6. ⁵

Table 6 Perceived impact of Scottish Parliament on giving ordinary people more say, by age and education, 2005

23. Younger people are less likely to be involved in politics. This is true both of participation in elections and in other forms of political activity (Bromley and Curtice, 2002; Pattie et al, 2004). If the aspirations of the advocates of devolution are being fulfilled, we would expect to find that younger people are particularly inclined to think that devolution is having a positive impact on how much say ordinary people have. This proves to be the case. Those aged 18-24 are significantly more likely than those aged 65 and over to say that having the Scottish Parliament is giving ordinary people more say.

24. However, by the same reasoning we would also expect to find that those without any educational qualifications are particularly likely to say that having the Scottish Parliament is giving ordinary people more say (Curtice and Seyd, 2002). In practice the opposite is true. Those who have a university degree, a group that is always particularly likely to get involved in politics, are considerably more likely than are those with no qualifications to feel that ordinary people now have more say. Equally, we would expect that those with little interest in politics should be especially likely to think that having a Scottish Parliament is giving ordinary people more say. So also should those who do not identify with any political party. However, as Table 7 below shows, neither of these expectations is fulfilled. Rather, it is those who express an interest in politics and those who do identify with a party who are more likely to think ordinary people now have more say.

Table 7 Perceived impact of Scottish Parliament on giving ordinary people more say, by attitudes towards politics, 2005

25. As is the case with trust in the Scottish Executive, attitudes towards the principle of Scotland having its own parliament also matter. Those who support the principle of Scotland having its own parliament are more likely than are those who do not to feel the existence of the institution is making a difference to how much say ordinary people have (Table 8). Interestingly, this is also true of Labour supporters as compared with supporters of other parties, perhaps because supporters of the party that introduced devolution are particularly keen to believe it is having a positive impact. ⁶

26. Meanwhile, those who feel that in practice the Scottish Executive has most influence on how Scotland is run are also more likely to think that ordinary people now have more say. The same is true of those who adopt a less critical attitude towards the Scottish Parliament building. Evidently the perception that devolution has increased the public's influence on government decisions is closely linked both to how influential and to how effective the devolved institutions are thought to be.

Table 8 Perceived impact of Scottish Parliament on giving ordinary people more say, by attitudes towards devolution, 2005

27. A second measure in our survey of whether people feel that devolution has brought them more influence in government is whether they think the devolved institutions actually listen to what they have to say. Here we are able to compare how good the Scottish Executive is thought to be at listening to people's views with how good the UK government is thought to be. Respondents were asked:

In general how good would you say the Scottish Executive is at listening to people's views before it takes decisions?

And how good would you say the UK government is at listening to people's views before it takes decisions?

28. As Table 9 shows, people are around twice as likely say that the Scottish Executive is 'very' or 'quite' good at listening to people's views than they are the UK Government. However, just as only a minority think that devolution has given ordinary people more say, only a minority - around one in three - think that the Executive is actually good at listening. In other words, for every one person who says the Executive is 'very' or 'quite' good at listening there are two who consider it to be 'not very' or 'not at all' good.

Table 9 How good is the Scottish Executive/ UK Government at listening to people's views?

29. The perception that the Scottish Executive is better than the UK government at listening to people's view is much the same across different social groups. It varies little by level of interest in politics either. Thus on this measure devolution has been neither particularly successful nor unsuccessful in reaching out to those who are usually less involved in politics.

30. Rather, it is those who are favourably inclined towards the principle and practice of devolution who are most likely to think the Scottish Executive is better at listening than is the UK government (see Table 10). Those who favour Scotland having its own parliament, either independent or devolved, are particularly likely to regard the Scottish Executive as better at listening than the UK Government. Meanwhile, the same is also true of those who think that devolution has given ordinary people more say, those who trust the Scottish Executive to look after Scotland's interests, ⁷ and those who say they frequently hear about what the Scottish Executive is doing.

Table 10 Proportion thinking Scottish Executive is better than UK Government at listening to people's views, by attitudes towards devolution and the Scottish Executive, 2005

31. In summary, while the majority of people in Scotland do not feel that the advent of devolution has given them more influence on government, a substantial minority feel it has. Equally only a minority think that the Scottish Executive is good at listening, though it still scores twice as well in this respect as does the UK government. However, with the (not unimportant) exception that younger people are particularly likely to think that devolution has brought ordinary people more say, there is no evidence that the devolved institutions have been particularly successful in persuading those groups that are usually less engaged in politics to feel a greater sense of involvement.

32. It is also evident that the degree to which people feel that devolution has brought them more influence depends on their attitudes towards the principle and practice of devolution. Unsurprisingly, those who oppose Scotland having its own Parliament (though not those who would like the institution to be independent of Westminster) are disinclined to feel that devolution has given ordinary people more say or has given Scotland an institution that is particularly likely to listen. At the same time, those who feel that the devolved institutions have proven to be less influential than Westminster and those who are particularly critical of the costs of the Scottish Parliament building are also disinclined to feel devolution has brought people more influence. Meanwhile those who have heard about what the Scottish Executive is doing or who feel able to trust the Executive are also more inclined to feel it is better at listening than the UK government. Evidently, the ability of devolution to engage people in the political process depends to an important degree on how influential and trustworthy the devolved institutions are thought to be.

« Previous | Contents | Next »