The Case for Further Fiscal Decentralisation

Popular pressure for further fiscal devolution from Westminster to Holyrood is less a matter of wanting to pursue a different policy agenda, says David Eiser, and more a matter of who the electorate trusts. 
It has often been argued that further powers over taxes and welfare spending should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament because Scots have a different set of preferences for public services than people in the rest of the UK. This argument is often presented as a compelling case for  further fiscal devolution to Holyrood. There is actually rather limited evidence that Scots are clamouring for significant changes in tax and welfare rates but they quite definitely want to see the powers over them devolved. This naturally raises a question of why a nation would want a power if not to use it. The answer would seem to be one of trust. 
My colleague David Bell and I examined data on political attitudes in Scotland and the rest of Great Britain (rGB) from the British Social Attitudes (BSA) Survey, which covers England, Scotland and Wales. The BSA Survey asks respondents whether they agree with a variety of statements about their political views, such as ‘ordinary people do not get their fair share of the nation’s wealth’. Based on responses, the BSA survey develops an index of political attitude, which ranges from 0 (extreme left-wing) to 5 (extreme right-wing). The results of this survey suggest that there is no statistical difference between Scotland and rGB in terms of the average score on this index.
What about attitudes to welfare more specifically? Based on questions such as ‘The government should spend more money on welfare benefits for the poor, even if it leads to higher taxes’, the BSA points at similar conclusions. Although Scots do appear to be slightly more sympathetic to welfare than people in rGB, the difference is small, not statistically significant and has not widened since the questions were first asked in 2001.
Despite evidence of only slight difference in attitudes between Scotland and rGB, what is undeniable is the significant demand among Scots for further fiscal devolution to Holyrood. A survey of 1,300 Scots commissioned by the Centre on Constitutional Change in the aftermath of the independence referendum showed that 60% of Scots want the State Pension fully or partially devolved, 70% think unemployment benefits should be devolved, and less than one third of Scots think that taxes such as income tax, corporation tax and VAT should remain solely under Westminster control.
How can we explain this desire for fiscal devolution when there is apparently so little difference in political attitudes? To explore this further, our own survey asked 1,300 Scots if they would like to see various tax and benefit levers devolved to Holyrood and how they would like to see them used if they were. 
In each case, the majority of people thought that tax and benefit rates should remain the same if they were devolved to Holyrood. Strikingly, even among those who were in favour of devolving a given tax or benefit lever to Holyrood, the majority did not want to see a change in rate following devolution.
So the evidence from attitudinal surveys poses a puzzle. There is considerable desire for fiscal decentralisation to Scotland, but little evidence for differences in preferences broadly, nor much appetite for deviation from current UK policy norms. 
Does this undermine the case for fiscal devolution to Holyrood? No, because there is another set of arguments around the case for fiscal devolution. This set of arguments relates to issues of political accountability and control.
Repeated surveys show that Scots place higher levels of trust in the Holyrood Parliament than the Westminster Parliament. Part of the reason for this is that Scottish voters think they are more able to influence the policy decisions of Holyrood compared to the Westminster Parliament, in which they have a more partial stake. In this light, the desire for further fiscal decentralisation can be seen as form of insurance, against the risk that future UK policy changes in a way in which the Scottish electorate does not support.
Even if a devolved tax or benefit remains unchanged, the very fact of keeping the policy unchanged is a choice that the Scottish Government has made and is answerable for. Scots want Holyrood’s accountability to match the levels of trust they place in it, even if they support the policy status quo in the immediate future. 
The argument for fiscal decentralisation on the grounds of accountability is more subtle, and harder to make, than one based on differences in preferences for policy. But it is no less compelling.
‘The case for further fiscal decentralisation to Scotland: theoretical and empirical perspectives’ will be published in the National Institute Economic Review in August. 

Comments policy

All comments posted on the site via Disqus are automatically published. Additionally comments are sent to moderators for checking and removal if necessary. We encourage open debate and real time commenting on the website. The Centre on Constitutional Change cannot be held responsible for any content posted by users. Any complaints about comments on the site should be sent to

David Eiser's picture
post by David Eiser
Fraser of Allander Institute
27th July 2015

Latest blogs

  • 22nd January 2019

    The UK is increasingly polarised by Brexit identities and they seem to have become stronger than party identities, a new academic report finds. Only one in 16 people did not have a Brexit identity, while more than one in five said they had no party identity. Sir John Curtice’s latest analysis of public opinion on a further referendum finds there has been no decisive shift in favour of another referendum. The report, Brexit and public opinion 2019, by The UK in a Changing Europe, provides an authoritative, comprehensive and up-to-date guide to public opinion on each of the key issues around Brexit. CCC Fellow, Dr Coree Brown Swan contributed a chapter on "the SNP, Brexit and the politics of independence"

  • 22nd January 2019

    In the papers accompanying the draft Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill published at the end of 2018, the UK Government says that it is “exploring opportunities to co-design the final proposals with the devolved administrations.” There are clear benefits in having strong co-operation and collaboration across the UK in the oversight of our environmental law and performance. Yet the challenge of finding a way forward in terms of working together is substantial since each part of the UK is in a different position at present. Given where things stand today, it may be better to accept that a good resolution is not possible immediately and to revisit the issue at a later stage - so long as there is a strong commitment to return and not allow interim arrangements to become fixed. Colin Reid, Professor of Environmental Law at the University of Dundee examines the issues.

  • 17th January 2019

    Richard Parry assesses a memorable day in UK parliamentary history as the Commons splits 432-202 on 15 January 2019 against the Government's recommended Brexit route. It was the most dramatic night at Westminster since the Labour government’s defeat on a confidence motion in 1979.

  • 17th January 2019

    What is the Irish government’s Brexit wish-list? The suggestion that Irish unity, as opposed to safeguarding political and economic stability, is the foremost concern of the Irish government is to misunderstand and misrepresent the motivations of this key Brexit stakeholder, writes Mary C. Murphy (University College Cork).

  • 17th January 2019

    Brexit is in trouble but not because of the Irish backstop, argues the CCC's Michael Keating.

Read More Posts