1 / 20

CANS: Wales and Scotland

CANS: Wales and Scotland. Richard Wyn Jones Wales Governance Centre Cardiff University. Context. Only W & S – no funding for England / English region i.e. no data on what we know least about Problematic in terms of thinking about solidarity etc.

harmon
Download Presentation

CANS: Wales and Scotland

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

  2. Context • Only W & S – no funding for England / English region • 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

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

  4. Multi-level voting, CANS 2009

  5. Which party best stands up for X?

  6. Constitutional Preferences

  7. Has / Should Have Most Influence?

  8. Identities & Perceived Significance of Scale • 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.

  9. National ID

  10. Scales and Attachment, % VERY attached

  11. Importance of decisions made, % VERY important

  12. “X doesn’t care much what people like me think”, % Agree Strongly and Agree

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

  14. Location of Policy Competences, Wales

  15. Location of Policy Competences, Scotland

  16. The Devolution Paradox... • 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.

  17. Degree of desired policy divergence

  18. Territorial Solidarity • 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

  19. Perceptions of relative prosperity compared to rest of UK

  20. Territorial Solidarity

More Related