John Curtice

The Institute for Public Policy Research has released "Is An English Backlash Emerging? Reactions to devolution ten years on" which brings us details of the latest British Social Attitudes data on constitutional preferences for England.

Support for an English parliament has leapt from 17% in 2007 to a historic high of 29% in 2009.

The 2008 data should have been included in the 26th British Social Attitudes Report released in January 2010, but it was decided to hold back the data until now to publish the 2008 and 2009 data together as part of the IPPR's investigation into the English Question. So what we have here is a two year leap from when I covered the 25th British Social Attitudes report last year, when I suggested strongly that there would be a rise in support for an English Parliament.

The data for the 26th BSA report will have already been collected over the course of 2008; the year in which a Scottish prime minister was crowned, then bottled a general election, and in which his reputation and economic legacy were laid to waste. In 2008 we had an SNP Government, the SNP's National Conversation and the Calman Commission, not to mention the repeated criticism of the Barnett Formula.

Obviously I still have the same doubts about the methodology of John Curtice. I think the question is worded in such a way as to force English respondents to choose between Westminster - the traditional home of English governance - and a *new* English parliament. There is also no option to measure support for English Votes on English Laws, which is usually the most popular solution (although given that EVoEL is an answer to the British Question rather than the English Question I can understand why it was left out).

So the British Social Attitudes survey is flawed because it asks the public to choose between a *new* parliament for England or the UK parliament, which historically is the English parliament, and finds that only 29% would like a *new* English parliament.

It does not attempt to measure support for an English parliament at Westminster or a "parliament within a parliament" - an English Grand Committee or "English Votes on English Laws", the latter being the model that commercial polls find most support for.

Asking people to choose between Westminster (England’s traditional parliament) or a new English parliament presupposes that an English parliament must be new and/or distinct (ie not dual purpose).

It would be more useful to paraphrase the referendum that prompted the Scots to vote for a Scottish parliament in 1997:

1. I agree that there should be a English Parliament; or
2. I do not agree that there should be a English Parliament Parliament

Despite my reservations about the neutrality of the question that John Curtice uses to determine support for an English parliament, it is highly significant and encouraging that support for a new English parliament has risen to 29%. Commercial polls tend to show greater support for an English parliament, up to 67%, but it is the British Social Attitudes data that academics and politicians use as their measure of public opinion. In the past we have been treated to the following gems:

"Opinion polls show that an English parliament commands almost no support amongst the English people"
Prof Robert Hazell , Prospect Magazine, Feb 2006

"as we know, there is no demand for an English Parliament"
Lord Howarth of Newport , Hansard, 10 February 2006

"The English seem uninterested in a separate English Parliament, and not sufficiently interested to vote for English Votes on English laws."
Prof Robert Hazell, The English Question (2005)

"...there is no demand at all for devolution to England or the English MPs only being able to vote on English issues."
Lord Falconer, Today Programme, 10th March 2006

"there is little enthusiasm for an English Parliament, with support for such a body continuing at under 20%. So the idea of an English Parliament, we say: not today, not tomorrow, not in any kind of future we can see know."
Lord Falconer, Speech to the ESRC Devolution and Constitutional Change Programme, March 2006

"an English Parliament lacks popular support. Of course we can't be sure this will remain the case, but polls since devolution have shown very small levels of support (16 per cent) for this policy among the English."
Guy Lodge and Meg Russell, Scotsman, 18 Jan 2006

In light of this new data, the above rhetoric from people opposed to the creation of an English parliament will now be more difficult to sustain in the court of academic and political opinion. Public opinion will continue to be better reflected in the surveys of respected pollsters like ICM, Ipsos MORI and YouGov. Prof John Curtice concludes:

Support for the idea of an English Parliament may be beginning to find some roots in English national identity and perceptions of England’s material interests. If this trend continues too, then politicians may indeed no longer be able to assume that it is safe to ignore England in the devolution debate.

It is the upward trend that will worry politicians (and certain biased academics). Gordon Brown may yet be able to add rising support for an English parliament to his legacy list.

The full IPPR report is available for download here and the accompanying press relase can be read here.

Related: Response to Prof John Curtice

Review of Where Stands the Union now? Lessons from the 2007 Scottish Parliament election by John Curtice, ippr.

(ippr, February 2008, 13pp)

New ippr report's use of polling data underplays Scottish and English dissatisfaction with the current Union settlement.

To begin Professor Curtice looks at Scotland's position in the Union, and he casts a critical eye over commercial polls that indicate significant support for independence. What is understood by 'independence' is crucial and he suggests that for many respondents 'independence' means greater autonomy within the Union, rather than separation.

This ambiguity is highlighted by a comparison between ICM's results (which show strong support for independence) and YouGov (whose results show weaker support). The ICM survey asks simply whether Scotland should, or should not, become an independent country, whereas the YouGov survey asks Scots to choose between retaining the present Scottish Parliament or becoming a completely separate state outside the UK.

Prof Curtice suggests why the YouGov poll showed much lower support for independence:

Some respondents might have been misled into thinking that Scotland would lose its existing parliament if the country were to leave the UK.

Turning his attention to English public opinion Prof Curtice casts doubt over the commercial polls that show support for an English parliament. Instead he gives preference to the British Social Attitudes (BSA) results which, according to Curtice, show that "every time the question has been asked, more than half have opted to leave things as they are now". A quick glance at the table does appear to back his assertion up.

And here, unfortunately, and perhaps through no fault of his own, Prof Curtice is complicit in propagating one of the great myths of British politics: That the English are content with the Status Quo.

In the accompanying IPPR paper (Kenny et. al.) it was stated that "there is evidence to suggest that in terms of public endorsement for available constitutional options, the status quo has been the most popular choice of the English". There is not.

A look at the commercial polls shows that the English are clearly not content with the Status Quo. In fact the commercial polls suggest that a large proportion of those apparently in favour of the Status Quo would actually, if given the choice, favour English Votes on English Laws. This is the solution that Curtice's academic peers describe as “an English Parliament in all but name” , “a de facto English Parliament”, a "parliament within a parliament" or the “slippery slope to" an English Parliament. Every single poll, except the BSA one preferred by Prof Curtice, shows a clear preference for some form of English parliament, be it a devolved parliament, a parliament within a parliament, outright independence, or a combination of the three.

To paraphrase Prof Curtice, the ‘wording is crucial’. The BSA question forces the English to make a choice between a *new* parliament for England, or Westminster (the place of English government since the 12thC). If the Scots were "misled" into thinking that Scotland would lose its existing parliament by the YouGov poll, then the BSA wording is misleading the English into believing that an English parliament has to be *new*.

In fairness to Prof Curtice he does not doubt that the English want a resolution to the democratic asymmetry that results in the West Lothian Question (which serves to underline the fact that they are not content with the Status Quo). And he does point out that we should not assume that the English will not opt for procedural changes to Westminster to resolve the unfairness:

Perhaps people in England would like Scotland's public spending advantage reduced and its MPs debarred from voting on 'English' laws?

My own, albeit anecdotal evidence, acquired from five years living in post-devolution Scotland, backs up Curtice's conclusion that the Scots would be happy with more devolution. Go to the pub and ask a Scot what he would prefer, and more likely than not he will cry "Freedom"; there is a little bit of William Wallace in every Scot. But ask again in the cold light of day and more often than not it is greater autonomy that is preferred.

Just as the Scots respond emotionally to the notion of independence – even if they are not prepared to vote for the reality - the English have an emotional attachment to Westminster. The Houses of Parliament are an English icon, ranked third in our national iconography, and in 2002 the building itself topped a poll of the Seven Wonders of Britain. The ghost of Walter Bagehot occupies the place in the English collective psyche that Wallace occupies in Scotland's imagination. Prof Curtice uses the word 'relatively' as a qualifier to say that the English are "relatively uninterested in devolution". Relative to whom, or what? According to opinion polls the public are also relatively uninterested in the EU, but that's not to say that the EU does not affect prominent public concerns and should not be addressed. There is certainly support for an English aspect to government but it is hampered by fealty to Westminster and misinformation and confusion about the pragmatism and benefits of English Votes on English Laws (the English are yet to understand that an English parliament WILL require devolved English government).

On the election of an SNP government I agree that it should not be read as indicative of support for independence; instead it signifies the unpopularity of Labour and a change in the way politics is conducted in Scotland, it is also testament to the cult of Alex Salmond. However, devolution-max for Scotland combined with England and Wales' quest for equity will put intolerable strains on the Union. The Status Quo is not an option.

First published on Our Kingdom under the title Status Quo not an option: Gareth Young v ippr II.