The Scottish Centre for Social Research has released its latest survey of Scottish attitudes. It confirms that SNP government at Holyrood has reduced the appetite for independence. For now it’s George Robertson 1 Tam Dalyell 0. The financial crisis has doubtless helps explain this but is not the whole explanation.
No, the findings (conveniently) offer support for my contention that the SNP vote is as much a cultural phenomenon as a political judgement on what’s best for Scotia. Is is an affirmation of identity, not a call for the break-up of Britain (or, if you want to put it this way: independence). Devolution may be a heads-you-win, tails-I-lose proposition: if an SNP government is perceived to be faring poorly, support for independence will likely fall but, equally, an SNP government that is seen to be doing well will render moot many of the arguments for independence. If we’re doing well, what’s the need for change? (And if we’re doing badly then change is too scary to contemplate.)
Note how support for independence peaked with Tony Blair’s unpopularity. This is a useful reminder that Scottish political trends remain driven, to quite some considerable extent, by events outside or beyond Scotland. If this remains the case then one should expect support for independence to rise, just a little, during the course of this Westminster parliament. The coalition’s unpopularity is likely to increase the appeal of independence. But this support will probably remain hypothetical and not just because a referendum on the matter seems unlikely to be held. When push comes to shove, independence remains a minority enthusiasm.
Here, though, are some findings that seem likely to infuriate English nationalists: in 2000 59% of those Scots surveyed felt Scotland received less than its fair share of public spending; between 2007-2010 that figure has fallen to (just!) 36-38%. Over the same period there has been a dramatic decrease in the number of people claiming there is no “Union Dividend”. Given the huge increases in public spending from 2000-2010 you may feel this could scarcely be otherwise even if it’s depressing to appreciate that nearly four in ten voters still think public spending is dangerously low.
Still, attitudes to devolution and government spending and services remain contradictory.
This seems pretty clear, no? Up to a point. Consider this chart:
In other words, the public has a notion that matters should, in theory, be decided in Scotland but is afraid or opposed to any actual or major differences being introduced that would increase discrepancies in the provision of these government-paid services across the United Kingdom. Again, the idea of doing things differently is enough; actually setting different tax or welfare rates is not deemed necessary.
This too suggests that the emotional or psychological state of Scottish politics can be satisfied by granting the possiblity of change without insisting upon actual radical or major change. Again, an SNP vote can be seen as a declaration of identity but that should not be confused with any desire for actual independence. The idea is enough.
Holyrood’s role, then, is to satisfy an idea of difference. All it need do is offer itself as Scotland’s protector, staving off Westminster’s predations. That’s enough and things must have a patina of change so they can remain much the same. How would it be otherwise in such a small and small-c conservative country? So it’s also Culture 1 Everything Else 0.
Comments