« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
2. Trends in attitudes to government, 1999-2007
Trust in government
2.1 As discussed in the introduction, the current interest in trust in government stems from evidence that levels of political trust have fallen in recent decades across many established democratic countries. This is seen as problematic by many social and political theorists who believe that 'trust is an essential component of civilised social and political life' and that low levels of political trust creates 'problems for democratic politics' (Newton, 2001).
2.2 Although this view is not without its critics - for example, Hardin (1999) argues that 'Among the core understandings of liberalism is that citizens should distrust and be wary of government' - low levels of trust do appear to have the potential to hamper public engagement with the political process. For example, there is evidence to show that those who express low levels of trust in government to put the interests of the nation above those of their party are somewhat less likely to vote in elections (e.g. Bromley, Curtice and Seyd, 2001). Moreover, those who do not trust government to act in their interests or to make fair decisions may be less motivated to get involved with the more active forms of participation encouraged by the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government (like responding to a consultation or starting a petition). 4 Against this background, the findings of surveys in Britain, the USA and some European countries that trust in government appeared to fall in the early 1990s has exercised politicians of all persuasions who are keen to re-connect with an apparently disenchanted electorate.
2.3 The Scottish Social Attitudes survey includes questions on two different aspects of political trust - trust to act in Scotland's best interests and trust to make fair decisions. The first set of questions is worded as follows:
How much do you trust the UK government to work in Scotland's best long-term interest?
and
How much do you trust the Scottish Executive to work in Scotland's best interests?
The answer options are: 'Just about always', 'Most of the time', 'Only some of the time', and 'Almost never'. These questions have been asked annually in SSA since 1999.
2.4 In 2006, two new questions were introduced, which asked how much people trust the UK government and the Scottish Executive to make 'fair decisions'. As discussed in Ormston and Sharp (2007b), political 'fairness' can be understood in different ways - for example, in terms of procedural fairness or impartial decision-making, or in terms of equality of outcomes. SSA defines 'fair decisions' as 'decisions that are fair to different groups of people in the UK/Scotland', reflecting the notion of fairness as 'equal consideration' of the interests of all citizens. Answer options are: 'A great deal', 'Quite a lot', Some', 'Not very much' and 'None at all'.
2.5 Three key points stand out from findings on trust to act in Scotland's best interests over time (Figure 1). The first is that trust in devolved government to act in Scotland's best interests has outstripped trust in the UK government to do the same in every year since 1999. Most recently, twice as many people said they trusted the Scottish Executive to act in Scotland's best interests 'just about always' or 'most of the time' as said the same of the UK government (71% compared with 35%).
2.6 Second is the big increase in trust in the Scottish Executive between 2006 and 2007. In the early years after devolution, trust in devolved government in Scotland fluctuated between around a half and two-thirds, with 'peaks' in trust in 2001 and 2003 ( UK and Scottish election years). However, in recent years (2004-2006) levels of trust in the Scottish Executive appeared to have flattened out, with about half the population expressing relatively high levels of trust. The 2007 results, in contrast, show a dramatic upturn in trust - up 20 percentage points from 2006. In fact, this represents the highest level of trust in devolved government since 1999, where results arguably reflected aspirations for the new institutions rather than assessments of their performance in practice.
2.7 However, this is accompanied by a third key finding - that trust in the UK government has increased by a similar degree. Trust in the UK government to act in Scotland's interests rose from 21% in 2006 to 35% in 2007 - the highest level of trust in the UK government ever recorded by SSA.
Figure 1 Trust in the UK and devolved Government5to act in Scotland's interests, 1999 - 2006
Base: All respondents
Sample size: 1999 = 1,482, 2000 = 1,663, 2001 = 1,605, 2002 = 1,665, 2003 = 1,508, 2004 = 1,637, 2005 = 1,549, 2006 = 1,594, 2007 = 1,508
2.8 Similar findings are apparent with respect to trust to make 'fair decisions' (Figure 2). In both 2006 and 2007, more people trusted the Scottish Executive than the UK government (47% compared with 33% in 2007). But between 2006 and 2007 trust in both institutions increased - from 31% to 47% for the Scottish Executive and from 23% to 33% for the UK government.
2.9 Although comparisons between the two sets of questions on political trust are slightly complicated by the fact that they use different answer scales, 6 it is also worth noting that trust in the Scottish Executive to make 'fair decisions' appears to be considerably lower than trust that they will act in Scotland's 'best interests'. This suggests that 'political trust' is multi-faceted, and that the level of trust people express in a government may vary depending on the precise aspect of government being asked about.
Figure 2 Trust in the UK government and Scottish Executive to make fair decisions, 2006 - 2007
Base: All respondents
Sample size: 2006 = 1,594, 2007 = 1,508
'System efficacy' - do people feel listened to and do they think they have a say?
2.10 The idea that the political system is responsive to the needs and wishes of citizens is known as 'system efficacy'. If people believe the political system is unrepsonsive to the views and wishes of people like them, this may well damage their motivation to participate. Bromley and Curtice (2002) demonstrate that those with low levels of efficacy are indeed somewhat less likely to vote, while Curtice and Seyd (2003) demonstrate a strong relationship between the belief that individuals can influence political decisions and their participation in non-electoral political actions like signing petitions, contacting MPs or going on a protest. There is some evidence that political efficacy declined in Britain during the 1990s and does not appear to have recovered since. For example in 1987 just 15% of people responding to the British Social Attitudes survey believed that 'parties are only interested in people's votes, not in their opinions', compared with 27% by 2001.
2.11 SSA includes two questions that measure perceptions of system efficacy in Scottish government. The first asks people whether they think that having a Scottish Parliament is giving ordinary people more say in how Scotland is governed, giving them less say or making no difference (asked annually since 2001). The second asks how good the Scottish Executive is at listening to people's views before it takes decisions (asked annually since 2004). For comparative purposes, the survey also asks how good the UK government is at listening to people's views.
2.12 In every year between 2000 and 2006, the most common view of the impact of devolution on ordinary people's say in how Scotland is run was that it was making no difference (Figure 3). However, in 2007 for the first time the proportion who believed it was giving ordinary people more say outweighed (just) the proportion who thought it was making no difference (47% compared with 45%). This represents a 10 point increase in the proportion who said devolution gives ordinary people more say, from 37% in 2006 to 47% in 2007.
Figure 3 Does having a Scottish Parliament give ordinary people more say in how Scotland is governed, less say or is it making no difference?71999 - 2007
Base: All respondents
Sample size: 1999 = 1,482, 2000 = 1,663, 2001 = 1,605, 2002 = 1,665, 2003 = 1,508, 2004 = 1,637, 2005 = 1,549, 2006 = 1,594, 2007 = 1,508
2.13 Just as trust in the Scottish Executive has been higher than trust in the UK government in every year the survey has asked about it, people in Scotland are also more inclined to believe the Scottish Executive listens to their views before taking decisions than they are to think the same of the UK government (Figure 4). In 2007, 43% thought the Scottish Executive was 'very' or 'quite good' at listening, compared with 21% for the UK government. Moreover, as with trust and perceptions of ordinary people's say in government, more people felt that the Scottish Executive listened in 2007 than thought this in 2006 - up to 43% from 36%. In comparison, the proportion of people who believed the UK Government listened changed little between 2006 and 2007 (18%-21%). However, there has been a gradual but significant increase in the proportion of people in Scotland who believe the UK Government is 'very' or 'quite good' at listening since 2004 (from 15% to 21%).
Figure 4 How good are the Scottish Executive and the UK government at listening to people's views before taking decisions? 2004 - 2007
Base: All respondents
Sample size: 2004 = 1,637, 2005 = 1,549, 2006 = 1,594, 2007 = 1,508
Perceptions of influence
2.14 If 'system efficacy' is about the extent to which the public can influence the decisions of political institutions, a key related issue is how much influence the public believe particular institutions actually have over the way the country is run. For example, if people think a government is very good at listening, but that it has little influence over how a country is run, this suggests that there is still a major gap in the perceived ability of that government to respond to citizens' needs. SSA asks which institution - the Scottish Executive, the UK government, Local Councils or the European Union - has and which ought to have most influence over the way Scotland is run. In every year since 2000, the UK government has been seen as the institution which has most influence over how Scotland is run (Figure 5). However, there has been a slow but steady increase over the past 7 years in the proportion who believe the Scottish Executive has most influence, from 13% in 2000 to 28% in 2007. It is also worth noting that in every year since 1999 two thirds or more have said they think the Scottish institutions should have most influence over how Scotland is run - rising slightly from 64% in 2006 to 71% in 2007 (see Annex A, Table A.8). Thus while there is still clearly a widespread gap between aspirations and perceived reality in terms of the influence of the devolved institutions, there is evidence that attitudes are slowly shifting.
2.15 That said, the proportion who said the UK Government had most influence, which fell in 2006, rose again in 2007 (from 38% to 47%). The result of this increase is that the gap between those who think the UK government and those who think the Scottish Executive most influential was actually wider in 2007 than in 2006. This appears to be partly the result of a reversal in an apparent trend towards more people viewing Local Councils as the bodies with most influence over the way Scotland is run. This trend, noted in the reports on the 2006 survey, was not sustained in the 2007 data. In 2007, just 8% said they thought Local Councils had most influence - down from 18% in 2006.
Figure 5 Who has the most influence over how Scotland is run? 1999-2007
Base: All respondents
Sample size: 1999 = 1,482, 2000 = 1,663, 2001 = 1,605, 2002 = 1,665, 2003 = 1,508, 2004 = 1,637, 2005 = 1,549, 2006 = 1,594, 2007 = 1,508
Scotland's voice in the UK
2.16 The impact of devolution on Scotland's voice in the UK has been widely debated in the Scottish and UK media (see for example the controversial assessment of devolution published in the Economist in May 2006 8). The advent of a Scottish Nationalist government in Scotland is only likely to intensify this debate. SSA explores this issue by asking whether people think that having a Scottish Parliament is giving Scotland a stronger voice in the UK, a weaker voice in the UK, or making no difference. Views have fluctuated quite widely in the years since devolution (Figure 6). Positive early aspirations gave way to more pessimistic evaluations of the impact of devolution in practice, with just 39% saying having a Scottish Parliament was giving Scotland a stronger voice by 2002. More recently, from 2004 to 2006 the dominant view was that having a Scottish Parliament made no difference to Scotland's voice in the UK. In 2007 however, this picture was reversed - at 61% the proportion of people who said devolution is giving Scotland a stronger voice was at its highest level since 1999.
Figure 6 Perceptions of the impact of having a Scottish Parliament on Scotland's voice in the UK9, 1999 - 2007
Base: All respondents
Sample size: 1999 = 1,482, 2000 = 1,663, 2001 = 1,605, 2002 = 1,665, 2003 = 1,508, 2004 = 1,637, 2005 = 1,549, 2006 = 1,594, 2007 = 1,508
Interpreting changing trends in attitudes to government
2.17 The findings discussed thus far indicate some striking shifts in attitudes to government in Scotland in recent years. Some trends - including perceptions of influence - indicate a gradual shift in attitudes over a number of years. However, in other areas - such as political trust and views on the impact of the parliament on ordinary people's say and Scotland's voice in the UK - there has been a substantial shift in responses in the one year period from 2006 to 2007.
2.18 There are at least two ways such short term shifts could be interpreted. First, as noted in the introduction, fieldwork for SSA 2007 took place from late May to early November 2007. This coincided not only with the early months of a new SNP administration in Edinburgh, but also with the period immediately following the succession of Tony Blair by Gordon Brown as Prime Minister on 27th June 2007. Thus at the same time as the SNP enjoyed a 'honeymoon' period following its election in Scotland, the UK Labour party was also enjoying a 'Brown bounce' in the opinion polls (Mortimore, 2007). As discussed in the introduction, other surveys have found an 'election bounce' in public attitudes to government, which often turns out to be short-lived. The increases in trust in both the Scottish Executive and the UK government may thus in part reflect (potentially) short-term improvements in the political fortunes of the leading political parties following elections or leadership changes.
2.19 A second possibility is that these short term shifts really do represent the beginning of an era of higher trust in government and increased belief in the impact of devolution. Perhaps people feel that a nationalist government, which is different from the party in power at Westminster, will stand up more strongly for Scottish interests. This in turn may have increased their trust in government and their perceptions of the impact of devolution for Scotland. However, the fact that trust in the UK government has also gone up may suggest that at the same time as people appear to be more satisfied with devolution, they are also happier with the union. At this stage such suggestions are wholly speculative - only further years of data will enable us to explore whether the findings observed in 2007 represent a short term peak or something more significant.
Areas of less change - attitudes to public services
2.20 Attitudes to public services - including beliefs about performance in the last year, attitudes to the impact of devolution on key services and beliefs about responsibility for standards in different services (Scottish Executive vis a vis Westminster) - were explored in detail in a report on the 2006 SSA (Ormston and Sharp, 2007a). Questions on public services were repeated in the 2007 survey. However, there has been less clear-cut change in responses to these questions than in other, broader attitudes to government already discussed. Moreover, even where there have been statistically significant changes, interpreting these is difficult for several reasons. First, even where changes are significant many are still fairly small. Second, attitudes to different services have sometimes diverged in unexpected directions. Third, given the timing of SSA fieldwork, questions which asked about the last 12 months covered a period during which two different administrations formed the Scottish Executive, meaning it is certainly too soon to attribute any changes in attitudes to the impact of current Scottish Government policy.
2.21 Full tables of findings on attitudes to public services are included in Annex A for reference. In brief, key findings include:
- Little change in attitudes towards the general standard of living and the standard of public transport in the last 12 months.
- A decrease in the proportion of people who thought standards in the health service and Scotland's economy had fallen/got weaker from 2006 to 2007, with a shift towards saying these areas had stayed the same.
- In contrast, fewer people thought standards in education had increased (20% compared with 30% in 2006) - more said they had stayed the same.
- Little change in the attribution of responsibility for standards in the last 12 months to Scottish Executive vs UK government policies. If anything, people appear slightly more likely to attribute standards to the UK government (though the changes are fairly small and most are not statistically significant 10) - possibly because the change of administration in Scotland means people were unwilling to attribute standards in the last year to the party in power at the time of their interview.
- Little change in perceptions of the impact of having a Scottish Parliament on standards in education and public transport in Scotland, although there was a small but statistically significant increase in the proportion who believe devolution was having a positive impact on standards in the NHS (from 22% in 2006 to 26% in 2007).
« Previous | Contents | Next »