research report, december 2002 - electoral commission · people tend to mention lack of knowledge,...

Scotland votes?

Research report, December 2002

Public attitudes towards Scottish Parliament elections

The Electoral Commission

We are an independent body that was set up by the UK Parliament. We aim to gain public confidence andencourage people to take part in the democratic processwithin the United Kingdom by modernising the electoralprocess, promoting public awareness of electoral matters,and regulating political parties.

On 1 April 2002, The Boundary Committee for England(formerly the Local Government Commission for England)became a statutory committee of The Electoral Commission.Its duties include reviewing local electoral boundaries.

Scotland votes?

This report presents the findings of a research projectundertaken by MORI Scotland and The Institute of Governance at The University of Edinburgh.

Copyright © The Electoral Commission 2002

ISBN: 1-904363-11-3

1Contents

Preface 3Executive summary 4Public expectations and evaluation of devolution 4Turnout and registration 4

Terms of reference 7Research steering committee 7Acknowledgements 7

Research methodology 8Scoping study 8Qualitative research 8

Public expectations and evaluation of devolution 11Comparisons with Westminster in terms of co-operation and trust 11Overall impact upon government 12Power and influence 12Evaluation and expectations of the Scottish Parliament’s impact in key policy areas 12Variation in attitudes by gender, age, social class, party affiliation and voting behaviour 13Changes in attitudes towards devolution 14

Levels of turnout and registration 19Non-registration 19Levels of non-voting among key social groups 23Modelling social variables 30

Understanding non-voting – quantitative data 35Age and non-voting 37Non-voting and political attitudes 38Are people consistent in their non-voting? 39The electoral system 40Governing Britain 40Non-voters and the party system 41Non-voting and institutional satisfaction 43Non-voting and civic participation 43Propensity to engage in various forms of protest 45

Non-voting and information 45Non-voting and attitudes to electoral systems 47

Understanding non-voting – qualitative research 51Lack of interest in politics 52Voting does not make any difference 53No difference between the parties 53Negative behaviour 53Not relating to elected representatives 54Parties not delivering on promises 54Negative publicity 55Expectations of the Scottish Parliament 55Life cycle as determinant of non-vote 56

Understanding voting 57Parental influence 57Women’s rights 58The tradition of voting 59The principle of voting 59Wanting to ‘be part of it’ 59Spontaneous voting 60

What do people think can be done to improve turnout? 61Politicians to ‘get the vote out’ 61Building engagement with young people 62An information-based campaign 62Using the education system to build awareness and knowledge 63Making it easier to vote 63

References 65Appendix 1 – Survey details 66Appendix 2 – Constituency turnout in 1999 67Appendix 3 – Modelling details 68

3

Scotland votes?: preface

Preface

Elections to the Scottish Parliamentare due to be held on 1 May 2003.Turnout at the first elections in 1999 was 59% but ranged from67.7% in Stirling to 40.6% inGlasgow Shettleston.

In accordance with its statutoryduties, The Electoral Commissionwill be developing and co-ordinatingawareness and educationcampaigns in Scotland in advanceof the May 2003 elections. TheCommission will also prepare andpublish a report on the elections. To inform both of these exercises,the Commission funded a researchstudy to better understand publicattitudes towards the ScottishParliament and the factors whichmight motivate people to vote in 2003.

In its report on the 2001 general election, Election 2001:The Official Results, the Commission included acommitment to developing a programme of research that would focus on the reasons for lower turnout amongsome groups. The aim was to create a body of researchthat would assist the Commission in developing, indiscussion with other stakeholders, a clearly targetedprogramme of voter education. The research would alsobe used to inform the Commission’s statutory reviews of the administration and conduct of elections.

This report presents the findings of a research projectundertaken by MORI Scotland and The Institute ofGovernance at The University of Edinburgh. The projectinvolved a scoping study review of recent opinionresearch as well as a primary qualitative research phaseexploring public attitudes to the Scottish Parliament and voting at Scottish Parliament elections. Overallresponsibility for the report rests with the authors and it should be noted that the findings and conclusions arethose of the authors and not of The Electoral Commission.

The report reviews attitudes in Scotland towards the Parliament, public understanding of its role andresponsibilities, and current levels of registration andturnout among electoral sub-groups. It also explores thefactors which might motivate people to vote at the 2003elections. Its contents will therefore be of interest to thosein Scotland, and elsewhere, who are seeking to facilitategreater levels of participation in the democratic processand increased levels of electoral registration and voting.

Sir Neil McIntosh CBEElectoral CommissionerChair of the Scotland votes? Research Steering Group December 2002

3

4Executive summary

The overall aim of this researchwas to examine public attitudestowards the Scottish Parliamentand voting at Scottish Parliamentelections. It was designed to assistThe Electoral Commission inplanning its voter awareness and education campaigns for the 2003 elections.

We recognise that this campaigncan only go so far in trying toencourage electors to use theirvote. Ultimately, other factors, some of which are brought out in this research, will influenceturnout in May 2003.

Public expectations and evaluation of devolutionPeople in Scotland continue to attach relatively highimportance to the Scottish Parliament despite what isperceived to be negative media coverage, and despite a prevailing mood of disaffection with party politics.

Much survey research suggests that the ScottishParliament’s overall impact on the way Britain is governed is regarded as relatively positive. However, our focus group participants tended to be unable, or unwilling, to cite positive outcomes delivered by the Parliament. This was, in part, a consequence of the profile of the focus groups.

Turnout and registrationTurnout at the Scottish Parliament elections in 1999 was 59%. There were significant differences in turnout by housing tenure, social class, educational attainment and income. Low turnouts were more likely to be found in constituencies in cities, notably Glasgow, rather than in small towns, suburban and rural areas.

In Scotland, age is by far the most significant socialdiscriminator determining who votes and who does not. Those aged 18–24 are three times less likely to votethan older people. While in this respect Scotland can be considered similar to other parts of the UK, there aresome important differences which might be expected to have an effect, for example the higher proportions of higher education students in Scotland.

Registration appears to be an obstacle to voting, ratherthan a reason for non-voting. Students, in particular, cite registration as a possible barrier. In the focus groupsregistration was viewed with some suspicion by youngmen from low income groups. On the other hand, wefound some evidence that younger women often viewregistration as a necessity – for example, enabling them to obtain a credit rating.

Scotland votes?: executive summary

5

Understanding turnout

Non-voters can be generally divided into two groups:those who cite ‘circumstances’ or obstacles for their non-voting, and those who express a degree of alienation from the political process – known as‘deliberate’ non-voters. There is, however, no simple set of social variables which allows us to predict intowhich of these two categories individuals will fall.

Analysis of survey data shows that:

• Non-voters have high levels of scepticism about thedifference that political parties can make when in power,their commitment to voters, and their capacity to work in the national interest rather than the party interest.

• Non-voters are consistently more sceptical about partiesthan voters. Despite this, ‘deliberate’ non-voters feel ableto identify with political parties and there is little evidencethat they abstain simply because there is no party in thepolitical ‘marketplace’ to represent their views.

• Non-voting does not appear to be strongly correlatedto attitudes to devolution.

• There is no evidence to suggest that abstention islinked to dissatisfaction with the voting system per se.

• There is no evidence to suggest that lack of politicalknowledge is systematically related to non-voting,although the qualitative research among non-votersdoes suggest otherwise.

Reasons for non-voting were explored in greater depth in the qualitative research which highlighted thesignificance of motivational factors. Generally, youngerpeople tend to mention lack of knowledge, interest andengagement in politics. Older age groups tend toemphasise a sense of disaffection and scepticism. Few people mention physical barriers to voting, either spontaneously or after prompting.

Reasons for non-voting among those groups less likely to vote include:

• A lack of interest in politics. This is particularly the caseamong younger people (although there would seem to

be a ‘life cycle’ effect, with the acquisition ofresponsibilities leading to greater interest in politics).Disengagement from the political process is alsorelated to a lack of understanding of politics, also given as a reason for not voting.

• ‘Voting not making a difference’. This perception isbased on questioning the difference one individual’svote actually makes. Again, this appears to be based on perceptions formed at a UK, rather than a Scottish, level. The proportional element of the Parliament’s electoral system tends not to be mentioned.

• ‘No difference between political parties’. Curiously,while this perception appears to influence people’spropensity to vote in Scotland, it seems to be largelydriven by consideration of UK politics. The perceivedsimilarity between the parties contributes to perceptions that it is not clear what the parties stand for, that ‘pledges’are phrased in ambiguous language and that the termsused by politicians are deliberately obscure. Thisleaves many feeling that nothing is being achieved.

• Not relating to elected representatives. This is a fairlycommon theme among younger people, but alsoamong many older age groups. There is a perceptionthat MSPs and MPs are paid too much, are remote(almost ‘another species’) and are only in politics tobenefit themselves, not those they represent. There is limited knowledge of what MSPs actually do or theirconditions of work.

• Parties not delivering on promises. This appears to berelated to high expectations of the Parliament not beingfulfilled. Many of the focus group participants admittedthat they have fairly limited knowledge of policies thathave been implemented since devolution.

• Negative behaviour. This includes people’s perceptionsof the way political parties interact at election time,during debates in the Parliament, or when discussingissues in the media. This appears to cause, among some, a sense of confusion of how politics is done, and what it achieves.

• Negative publicity. There is a perception that negative


6

or trivial media coverage of the Scottish Parliament isrelated to negative behaviour. Although one may doubt whether people would read and absorb detailedaccounts of the structure, role and actions of theParliament and Executive, the focus groups suggest a view held by some that the media, and principally the print media, pay scant attention to the issues.

• Unfulfilled expectations. Another important theme is the perception that the Scottish Parliament has not metexpectations (related, in part, to the high expectationsresulting from the referendum campaign). Peoplesuggest that the Parliament needs to set more ‘realistic’targets for what it can achieve (recognising that thepublic needs to be equally prepared to accept these).Others, particularly those who appear more likely tovote in 2003, feel the Parliament needs more timebefore it can be appraised.

This is supported by analysis from the scoping study:

• Although remaining positive overall, expectations of theScottish Parliament’s impact in key policy areas havegenerally become less positive.

• Trust in the Scottish Parliament to work in Scotland’sinterests is not as high as pre-devolution expectations,although it remains substantially higher than trust in theUK Parliament.

• Most people in Scotland think that the creation of theScottish Parliament has, as yet, made no difference tothe way Britain is governed.

At the same time that perceptions of the actual influenceof the Scottish Parliament have fallen, there is increasingsupport for it receiving more powers. Attitudes towardshow much influence the Parliament should have, remainconsistently positive.


7Terms of reference

The Electoral Commissioncontracted MORI Scotland and The Institute of Governance at The University of Edinburgh toundertake a project to investigatepublic attitudes towards theScottish Parliament, publicunderstanding of the role andresponsibilities of the Parliament,and the factors which mightmotivate people to vote at the 2003 elections. The project involved a scoping study review of recent opinion research surveysfollowed by primary qualitativeresearch (for more detail, see thefollowing section of this report).

The research project team comprised:

• Simon Braunholtz, Director, MORI Scotland;

• Barry Stalker, Research Executive, MORI Scotland;

• Professor David McCrone, The Institute of Governance,The University of Edinburgh;

• Professor Alice Brown, The Institute of Governance,The University of Edinburgh;

• Ross Bond, The Institute of Governance, The University of Edinburgh;

• Michael Rosie, The Institute of Governance, The University of Edinburgh.

Research steering committeeThe research project was supervised by a steeringcommittee convened by The Electoral Commission. This consisted of:

• Sir Neil McIntosh CBE, Electoral Commissioner;

• Andy O’Neill, Head of Office, Scotland, The Electoral Commission;

• Janet Seaton, Head of Research and InformationServices, The Scottish Parliament;

• Anne Hinds, Director of Media and Public Affairs, The Electoral Commission;

• Ben Marshall, Research and Information Manager, The Electoral Commission.

AcknowledgementsThe research team would also like to thank Fiona Nolan,MORI Field & Tab, Field Controller for managing therecruitment of the focus groups, Jacquie Whyte forrecruiting and hosting the groups, and the participants of the eight focus groups for giving up their time to takepart in this research.

Scotland votes?: terms of reference

8ResearchmethodologyThe project was conducted in two stages. The first was a scopingstudy looking at existing literatureon the subject as well as examiningrelevant data-sets to gain an insightinto what makes people likely tovote or not. The second was aseries of focus groups exploring theissues raised in the scoping study.These groups, their location, make-up and coverage were developedto take account of the themes andfindings of the scoping study.

Scoping studyThe scoping study, conducted by The Institute ofGovernance, The University of Edinburgh, used existingresearch and data. Specifically, the aims were as follows:

• To review critically and analyse previous quantitativeand qualitative research relating to devolution and voter attitudes.

• To identify key sub-groups and issues for furtherresearch in the qualitative research phase.

Qualitative researchThis stage sought new insights into the attitudes of theScottish electorate towards Scottish Parliament electionsand to establish motivating and de-motivating factors to voting at elections in 2003.

Particular attention was paid to the 18–34 age group, as all the evidence indicates a lower propensity to voteamong ‘the young’. However, consideration was alsogiven to the ‘middle aged’ working class electoratebecause, although more likely to vote than the young, the likelihood of voting is relatively low among this cohort. Those ‘certain’ to vote in 2003 were screened out of recruitment for the groups comprising participants aged 35 years or over. Finally, in order to understand the de-motivating factors among a population group that generally does vote, the research included people aged 45–60 who told us they generally voted, but were not certain to vote in 2003.

The research programme consisted of eight focusgroups, conducted at five separate locations in Scotland,with participants selected using purposive sampling andeach group recruited to be reasonably homogeneous.

Scotland votes?: research methodology

9

The main objectives of the qualitative phase were to explore issues, attitudes and values that underlie non-voting. In particular, we focused on:

• attitudes towards devolution;

• sources of information, and awareness of issuesrelating to the Scottish Parliament;

• reasons for non-voting at elections generally;

• reasons for voting at elections and in particular voting at the 2003 Scottish Parliament election;

• suggestions for what can be done to encourage more people to vote;

• among younger participants – awareness and attitudes towards the electoral register.

Scotland votes?: research methodology

Location Time and date Quotas

Dundee Mon 19 August, 7pm Mixed gender, 35–45, mixed tenure, income up to £15,499, usually vote but not certain to in 2003

Edinburgh Tues 20 August, 6.30pm Female, 18–24, renting, income up to £8,000, non-student

Glasgow Wed 21 August, 8pm Male, 18–24, renting, income up to £8,000, non-student

Glasgow Wed 21 August, 6pm Mixed gender, 20–25, renting, student

Peebles Tues 27 August, 8pm Mixed gender, 45–60, mixed tenure, income over £15,500, usually vote but not certain to in 2003

Peebles Tues 27 August, 6pm Mixed gender, 25–34, mixed tenure and work status

Kilmarnock Thurs 29 August, 6pm Mixed gender, 25–34, mixed tenure and work status

Kilmarnock Thurs 29 August, 8pm Mixed gender, 35–45, mixed tenure, income up to £15,499, usually vote but not certain to in 2003

Table 1: Composition of focus groups

11

Scotland votes?: public expectations and evaluation of devolution

Public expectationsand evaluation of devolutionThe purpose of this first section is to provide a general picture of overall attitudes to devolutionand the Scottish Parliament. We focus on the most recentquantitative data, drawn from the 2001 Scottish Social AttitudesSurvey (SSAS) and, whereappropriate, the 2001 British Social Attitudes Survey (BSAS) (for the technical details of thesesurveys see Appendix 1). Figuresrelate to the SSAS unless otherwisestated. Where relevant we alsoconsider the subsequent qualitativedata from the focus group phase ofthis research project.

Comparisons with Westminster in terms of co-operation and trustA majority (51%) of respondents believe that MSPs from different parties work together to solve Scotland’sproblems ‘a great deal’ or ‘a fair amount’. In contrast,only 29% fall into these categories when asked aboutMPs from different parties working together to solveBritain’s problems.

This was explored further in the qualitative research, which found a tendency by some to view the politics of the Scottish Parliament as being similar to that of the UK Parliament, and not the new form of politics that they understood the Parliament to stand for. For example,there is a perception that the new politics has notdelivered consensus and co-operation, resulting in fairlynegative perceptions of the Parliament. This was acommon theme that ran through all the focus groups:

They promised us it wasn't going to be like Westminster.They were actually going to work together to give a better Scotland and what they’ve ended up doing is exactly what they do at Westminster. As soon assomebody makes a mistake it’s right on to them. They should work together to do something.Kilmarnock, 25–34, mixed gender/tenure/work

They seem to be fighting an awful lot betweenthemselves as well…They’re supposed to be the voice of the people but they can't even get on with each other. What’s the point? Edinburgh, female, 18–24, renting, low income

About three times as many respondents (65%) believethat the Scottish Parliament can be trusted to work inScotland’s best interests nearly all or most of the time,than hold similar beliefs about the UK government (22%).It is interesting that in Scotland levels of trust in theScottish Parliament to work in Scotland’s best interestsare substantially higher than levels of trust in England in the UK government to work in England’s best interests.

12


The BSAS shows that only 48% of those in Englandbelieve that the UK government can be trusted to work in England’s best interests nearly all or most of the time.

Overall impact upon governmentWhile a small majority (54%) believe that the creation of the Scottish Parliament has made no difference to the way the UK is governed, many more believe it hashad a positive impact (35%) than believe it has had anegative impact (8%). These proportions indicate a morepositive, and less indifferent, perspective than that foundin England in the BSAS: 78% believed that the ScottishParliament had made no difference, although rather more (15%) were positive than were negative (9%).

A small majority (52%) believe that the ScottishParliament has given Scotland a stronger voice in the UK, compared to only 6% who say it has given Scotlanda weaker voice. A large minority (40%) believe it hasmade no difference. While a small majority (56%) thinkthe Scottish Parliament has made no difference in giving‘ordinary people’ a greater say in government, manymore (38%) believe it has had a positive impact in thisregard than a negative one (4%).

Very similar proportions believe that the creation of theScottish Parliament will make it more (28%) or less (27%)likely that Scotland will leave the UK. A larger proportion(41%) believe it will make no difference.

There was a general feeling in the focus groups that theScottish Parliament to date has made little difference tothe people of Scotland, although often this is temperedwith the caveat that perhaps more time is required. Inparticular, there is a feeling that the Parliament has notmet the original expectations generated from itsestablishment. It does, however, appear to be the casethat those more favourable to voting in 2003 are alsomore receptive to the view that the Parliament should be given more time.

Power and influenceMore than two-thirds (68%) agree that the Scottish Parliamentshould be given more powers, while only 16% disagree.

While only 15% believe that the Scottish Parliament is the institution that has the most influence over the wayScotland is run (compared to 66% for the UK Parliament),74% believe the Scottish Parliament ought to be the mostinfluential institution (compared to 14% for the UKParliament). It is instructive to compare these figures with the views of respondents in England in the BSAS:only about 1 in 10 believe that English regionalassemblies should be most influential, and a very similar proportion believe this should be the role of a newEnglish parliament. The majority (54%) continue to backWestminster in this respect (the next most popular optionis in fact local councils, which attract nearly double thesupport of regional assemblies or an English parliament).

Focus group participants generally shared the view thatthe Scottish Parliament is not the institution that has mostinfluence over the way Scotland is run but should be themost influential.

Around six in 10 (61%) of those living in Scotland believethat the Scottish Parliament should decide the level of welfare benefits – a power currently reserved toWestminster. Less than one-quarter think that this powershould continue to be exercised by the UK Parliament.

Evaluation and expectations of the ScottishParliament’s impact in key policy areasIn terms of the perceived impact of the ScottishParliament upon standards of education in Scotland, a majority (59%) believe it has made no difference, butthose with a positive view (27%) far exceed those with a negative view (5%).

Views of the Parliament’s likely future impact upon thehealth service in Scotland show that the vast majority ofrespondents are fairly equally divided between those whobelieve the Scottish Parliament will have a positive effect(45%) and those who say it will make no difference

13


(42%). Only a small minority (9%) think it will have a negative impact.

A similar pattern of response is evident in relation to the Parliament’s likely future impact upon the Scottisheconomy. Similar proportions (43%) believe it will have a positive influence or will make no difference. Only 10% give a negative response.

Variation in attitudes by gender, age, socialclass, party affiliation and voting behaviourHaving looked at overall attitudes, we now explore how these vary across key social and political groups.The relationship with voting or non-voting is, of course, of particular interest.

Gender

This does not appear to be a particularly strong factor in determining attitudes towards devolution. Male andfemale attitudes invariably show much greater similaritythan difference. There are some weak but consistentpatterns in the data, which suggest that men show agreater tendency to polarise into positive and negativeopinions while women are more likely to be found in themiddle ground of ‘no difference’ and ‘don’t know’. But we should reiterate that even in this respect, differencesare relatively small.

This was explored in greater depth in the qualitativeresearch, which tends to support the view that thereappears to be little difference in attitudes by gender.However, considering the two gender-specific focusgroups, which consisted of young people aged 18–24,on low income and renting, there do appear to bedifferences in understanding and knowledge of politics.

Participants in the all-female group appear to be moreknowledgeable about politics, many knowing who theircouncillor, MSP and MP is. Several had contacted apolitician in the recent past, in particular Councillors, butthere had also been some contact with MSPs. Notably,most of those appearing to be more knowledgeable andactive in contacting politicians were parents. In contrast

to this, the all-male group appeared less knowledgeableand less interested in politics – and appeared leastinclined to vote in 2003. None had contacted an MSP.

Age

Again any evidence here tends to be quite weak. Thereare certainly no strong patterns, suggesting that attitudestend to move in a particular direction as people getyounger or older. If anything, it appears to be youngpeople who are more well-disposed in their attitudes to devolution, which suggests that this is not likely to be a factor in low turnout among the young.

Class

Nevertheless, there is quite a bit of evidence to suggestthat there is a tendency for lower social class groups to be less positive about institutions and theirachievements, yet at the same time more ‘ambitious’ in terms of the powers and influence they would like the Scottish Parliament to have.

The converse tends to be true of the highest socialclasses who tend to be more positive towardsgovernment in general (of whatever form), but less‘ambitious’ for the Scottish Parliament. However, inabsolute terms, all social classes tend to be positive and ambitious. For example, although the highest social class (employers in large organisations, highermanagers and professionals) clearly show the lowestlevels of agreement that the Parliament should be givenmore powers, more of these people (47%) agree thandisagree (31%). Similarly, although clearly below thatfound in any other social class, support for the ScottishParliament being the most influential political institutionstill stands at 60% in the highest social class, comparedto 33% support for the UK Parliament.

Party affiliation

This is quite strongly related to attitudes to devolution. Conservative supporters are invariably less positive, and less ambitious in terms of a desire for more powers and influence to reside in Scotland

14


(although, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, a clearmajority still believe that the Scottish Parliament ought to be the most influential institution). Labour and LiberalDemocrat supporters tend to be the most positive, butrather less ambitious than SNP supporters. The latter are the most complex group – they are clearly (and notsurprisingly) the most ambitious in terms of powers andinfluence, but can be relatively positive or negative intheir attitudes depending on the question.

Past voting

This was determined in relation to vote at the 2001general election, this being the most recent and onlymajor election covered by the 2001 survey (unfortunately,respondents were not asked whether they had voted inthe Scottish Parliament election of 1999). Any observablepatterns are as one would expect – there tends to begreater scepticism about the Scottish Parliament andgovernment in general among non-voters. But thesurprising thing is that such differences tend to be verysmall. Hence non-voting does not appear to be strongly correlated with attitudes to devolution.

In the focus group research, participants who were past non-voters, or said they were unlikely to vote in the Scottish Parliament election in 2003, did tend to be more sceptical about politics generally than voters, but there appears to be little observable difference of opinion when talking about devolution specifically.

Changes in attitudes towards devolutionThese were assessed using all relevant and availabledata from the Scottish election (or referendum) andsocial attitudes surveys conducted in 1997, 1999, 2000and 2001. Where one of these years is not mentioned,this indicates that the question was not relevant to, or included in, that year’s survey.

Comparisons with Westminster in terms of trust

The following chart shows the percentage believing thatthe Scottish Parliament and the UK government can betrusted to work in Scotland’s best interests nearly all ormost of the time.

These figures show a major decline in trust in bothinstitutions between 1999 and 2000, and then a moremodest recovery in 2001. The most consistent feature is the consistently large differential in trust, in favour ofthe Scottish Parliament.

Overall impact upon government

The proportion believing that the creation of the ScottishParliament has made a positive impact upon the wayBritain is governed has not changed between 2000 and 2001 (35%). The proportion believing it to have had a negative impact has also changed little (down from 10% to 8%). Those saying it has made no difference rose from 44% to 54% between 2000 and 2001 – many more people said it was ‘too early to tell’ in 2000.Chart 2 shows the proportion agreeing that the ScottishParliament will give/has given Scotland a stronger voicein the UK, and that it will give/has given ‘ordinary people’a greater say in government.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Scottish Parliament

UK government

Note: all figures are percentages

2.3:1

Trus

t rat

io (S

P:U

K g

over

nmen

t)

1997

1997

2.5:11999

1999

2.9:1

2000

2000

3:12001

2001

Chart 1: Trust in the Scottish Parliament and the UK government

15


Although these data appear to indicate a trend towardsmuch less positive opinions, it is important to note thatthe major shift occurs between 1999 and 2000. Thisdemonstrates the evident difference in asking people whatthe parliament will do (i.e. in the pre-devolution period),and what it has done (in the post-devolution period).

Opinions about whether the creation of the ScottishParliament will make it more or less likely that Scotlandwould leave the UK are shown in Table 2.

These figures suggest that the actual establishment and operation of the devolved Parliament has lessened expectations that its creation will lead to an independent Scotland.

Power and influence

The proportion of those who believe that the ScottishParliament should be given more powers has risen from 56% in 1999 to 66% in 2000 and to 68% in 2001.

We can see here that a remarkable change occurredbetween 1999 and 2000 in perceptions of the ScottishParliament’s influence. In 1999, before the Parliament had been established, 42% thought that this would be the most influential institution – more than believed this of Westminster. A year later, with the Parliament up andrunning, a mere 13% thought it the most influential body,whereas a clear majority (66%) accorded this status toWestminster. These findings were virtually duplicated in 2001.

It seems that what we are observing here is thedifference between expectation and evaluation. Crucially,respondents in 2000 and 2001 were asked what was themost influential institution, rather than what would be (as they were in 1999). Clearly, expectations of the newParliament’s likely influence far outweighed the perceivedreality of this influence. In contrast, opinions about which

1997 1999 2000 2001

More likely 42 37 27 28

Less likely 19 27 25 27

Make no difference 32 31 43 41

Note: all figures are percentages.

1999 2000 2001

Scottish Parliament 42 13 15

Westminster 39 66 66

Local councils 8 10 9

EU 5 4 7


Table 2: Perceptions of the impact of the Parliament onScotland leaving the UK

Table 3: Which political institution(s) will be or are the most influential?

1999 2000 2001

Scottish Parliament 74 72 74

Westminster 13 13 14

Local councils 8 10 8

EU 1 4 1


Table 4: Which political institution(s) should be the most influential?

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Stronger voice in the UK?

Ordinary people more say?

Note: all figures are percentages agreeing

1997

1997

1999

1999

2000

2000

2001

2001

Chart 2: Perceptions of the impact of the Scottish Parliament

16


institution should have most influence have remainedremarkably consistent across all three surveys, witharound three in four respondents citing the ScottishParliament, while only about one in six feel thatWestminster should be pre-eminent.

Indeed, the effect of people’s expectations of theScottish Parliament arising from the referendumcampaign is one of the key themes to come out of thefocus groups. These are discussed later in this reportwhen consideration is given to reasons for non-voting.

Evaluation and expectations of the ScottishParliament’s impact in key policy areas

It is apparent from the figures in Table 5 that the overallpicture is one of declining positive expectations andevaluations of the Parliament’s impact in key policy areas.On this occasion, this cannot be largely accounted for by the shift from a pre- to a post-devolution context (i.e. the shift from expectation to evaluation), becauseexpectations themselves declined between 1997 and1999. However, this shift will most likely have had at leastsome effect. Nevertheless, we should be careful to avoidan excessively negative interpretation of these changes.On all these questions, those holding positive opinionscontinue to outnumber substantially those with negativeopinions. Most change is accounted for by peoplemoving from positive to ‘no difference’ categories,probably reflecting a realisation of the limitations on the powers and influence of the Parliament.

Attitudes towards, and perceptions of, political parties

In gauging public attitudes to politics within a post-devolution context, it is also important that we assessopinion with regard to the political parties. The datadiscussed earlier concerning differential opinions aboutcross-party working in the Scottish and UK Parliamentsare clearly of relevance here, but there are a number ofother dimensions that need to be discussed. We focuson data from the 2001 SSAS, using BSAS 2001 data forcomparison, where appropriate.

In Scotland, there is very little difference in opinionsabout whether it ‘makes a difference’ which party winselections at a Scottish or UK level. In each case only a minority, albeit a large minority, believe it makes ‘a great deal’ or ‘quite a lot’ of difference (43% believe this of Scottish elections, and 45% of UK elections).However, these outnumber those who feel it makes littleor no difference who wins (32% and 33% for Scottish andUK elections respectively). Data from the BSAS for thoseliving in England are very similar: 44% believe it makes a‘great deal’ or ‘quite a lot of difference’ which party winsa UK election, and 34% feel it makes little or no difference.

The above point suggests that, despite a high degree of scepticism, most people still believe that parties make a difference. But when respondents in Scotland wereasked directly to agree or disagree with the statementthat ‘it doesn’t matter which party is in power’, there is a more negative outcome, with a clear majority (62%)agreeing with the statement. Again the English data arevirtually identical with 63% agreeing with the statement.

An even larger majority (73% in Scotland, 76% inEngland) agree that ‘parties are only interested in votes’.The perception of the disengagement of politicians andpolitical parties from ‘ordinary people’ is also one drawnout from the focus groups.

Another finding that could be interpreted quite negativelyis that only 27% of those in Scotland would trust UKgovernments to put national interests above partyinterests nearly all or most of the time; 54% believe

1997 1999 2000 2001

…improve(d) Scotland’s economy 54 43 36 43

…improve(d) the NHS in Scotland 60 50 n/a 45

…improve(d) the standard of education in Scotland 71 56 43 27


Table 5: Percentage agreeing that the Parliament will/has…

17


this to be true only some of the time and 18% almostnever. But there is little evidence that this might arise from a Scottish antagonism towards the UK governmentbecause those in England in the BSAS responded in avery similar fashion: 28% said nearly all or most of thetime, 50% only some of the time, and 20% almost never.

Table 6 shows how those in Scotland who did not vote in the 2001 general election differ from those who didvote in each of the areas described above. It is clear from these figures that non-voters show consistentlyhigher levels of scepticism.

In terms of perceptions of the difference between parties,the figures in Table 7 show that in aggregate terms thecontrast between Labour and SNP is believed to begreater than that between Labour and Conservative. The BSAS data (shown in brackets) show that peopleliving in England believe the Labour and Conservativeparties to be even closer than do those in Scotland.

Voters Non-voters All

Makes little or no difference which party wins Scottish election 27 44 32

Makes little or no difference which party wins UK election 27 47 33

Doesn’t matter which party is in power 57 72 62

Parties only interested in votes 72 77 73

Almost never trust governments to put nation above party 15 25 18

Note: all figures are row percentages agreeing.

Table 6: Voter and non-voters’ perceptions of political parties in Scotland

Labour Labour and

and SNP Conservative

Great difference 33 21 (16)

Some difference 42 39 (38)

Not much difference 19 38 (43)


Table 7: Perceived difference between political parties in Scotland

19Levels of turnout and registrationEvidence for the following is drawn primarily from the 1999Scottish Parliament Election Survey (hereafter SPES), although reference is also made to the following studies:

• Scottish Household Survey(SHS) 1999;

• British Social Attitudes Survey (BSAS);

• Scottish Social Attitudes Survey (SSAS);

• British Election Survey (BES);• Scottish Election Survey (SES).

Although turnout in the 1999 Scottish Parliament electionwas 59%, both SPES and SHS report a claimed turnoutof 71–72%. We must, obviously, be a little cautious ataccepting the survey data as entirely representative given this discrepancy, for respondents may not beentirely accurate in their answers.

Non-registrationThe small sample size of those saying they were not registered precludes much in the way of detailedanalysis. In SPES, a small number of respondents (20) said that they were not eligible to vote, representing1.3% of the sample as a whole and 4.7% of all non-voters. A majority of these (12) were aged 25–34. Onlyone person in this group was aged 18 (and who mighttherefore have been ineligible because they were legallytoo young to vote on election day).

In SHS, however, we find that 136 respondents said thatthey were not registered to vote. This represents 2.7% ofthose asked whether they had voted, and around one in10 (9.4%) of those who said they did not vote. Of these,eight were aged 16–18, and therefore likely to be ineligibleon the grounds of age. If we exclude these eight andconcentrate on respondents aged 19 or over, we find the age pattern in Chart 3.

Scotland votes?: levels of turnout and registration

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Percentage of those not registered to vote (19+)

Note: All figures are percentages agreeing.

19-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65-74

75+

Chart 3: Non-registration by age (base: 128)

20

While there is clearly a propensity for the younger age groups to constitute the larger part of those notregistered, it should be noted that a significant proportion(41%) are aged 35 or older. It remains true, however, that non-registration appears more common among theyoung, with 12% of all the 19–24 group saying that theyhad not voted because they were not registered, ascompared to less than half that proportion in the 25–34group, half again in the 35–44 and 45–54 groups, andonly very small proportions of the older groups.

Considering younger participants in the qualitativeresearch, most, though by no means all, of their firstexperience of registering to vote is their parents’ puttingtheir name on the register while still living at home. As a result, there is a general knowledge of how to register,most mentioning the forms sent through the post askingfor the details of eligible household members.This letter is the method that is mentioned when describing how to register after leaving home. It is also useful to considerdifferent opinions of registering to vote between youngmen and women and between students and non-students.

Students

Most of the students participating in the focus groupssaid they were registered to vote at home. However, forstudents living away from home this may pose a barrierto voting, particularly if they are not registered at theirterm-time address. There was a perception that thismight make the process of voting more ‘difficult’ in eitherarranging a postal vote or travelling back home to theirparents to vote.

One possible solution to this was a suggestion thatstudents attending university are registered to vote in the local constituency on arrival at the university. It wasgenerally accepted that although this may not necessarilyencourage voting, it would reduce barriers, especially giventhe customary timing of general and Scottish Parliamentelections when many students tend to be on campus.

Non-students

The qualitative research found a link between theperceptions young people have of the electoral registerand how this affects their willingness to register. This wasparticularly salient in the two focus groups among 18–24year olds on low income (non-students).

Some male participants, particularly younger ones, viewregistering to vote with some suspicion. In this group,although there is some knowledge of how to register to vote (most referring to the form recently sent through the post to be completed), few say they know if they are registered. In particular, there is a belief that notregistering to vote somehow makes them untraceable to the authorities. This view may perhaps be a legacy of the Poll Tax, when it was believed that not registering to vote would aid those unwilling to pay the tax:

If you’re not basically registered on the register theycan’t track you down… You’re not on anything apartfrom your birth certificate, as far as they know youcould have died.Glasgow, male, 18-24, low income, renting


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Percentage of non-voters giving non-registration as reason for not voting

19-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65-74

75+

Chart 4: Non-registration as reason for non-vote, by age

21

However, this unwillingness to be ‘officially registered’among some of the younger male participants may notnecessarily preclude other household members beingregistered. In the example below, the young man claimsto have made the effort to fill in and send back theregistration form on behalf of other household memberswhile at the same time not registering himself:

I fill it in for the wife and the weans. I don’t fill in my name.Glasgow, male, 18–24, low income, renting

Suspicion of the electoral register to some extent acts asa barrier to voting, influencing whether or not to register.However, this contrasts to young women’s perception of the electoral register. In the all-female group mostparticipants say they are registered, even if they do notvote. They appear to take a more pragmatic view of theelectoral register, for example as a necessity in order to obtain credit through a credit rating. In this respect,young women’s perception of the electoral register is more ‘positive’ than young men’s:

You need to be on the electoral roll. If you want thingsand you’re not on the electoral roll…It’s like you’relooked at, because you don’t vote, you’re not worthy of having a credit card or getting a washing machineand things like that because you’re not on the electoralroll. I put my name on the electoral roll and then don’t use my vote.Edinburgh, female, 18–24, low income, renting

Indeed, the idea of being on the electoral register as afinancial requirement appears to be generally accepted.Asked what barriers there may be to people registering to vote, responses included:

Literacy, being blind, different language, language barriers.Edinburgh, female, 18–24, low income, renting

Owing money! You might think of registering to voteand you’re in debt or black listed or something like that.Edinburgh, female, 18–24, low income, renting

The electoral register is viewed in different ways but it is perhaps significant that the view that being on theelectoral register will enable you to vote is not apredominant issue. Perhaps this is because it is taken for granted that the main purpose of registering to vote is to vote, although based on these two focus groups thisdoes not appear to be a driving factor. As suggested bythe young woman below, simply being registered to votedoes not necessarily make voting a formality:

I don’t think it’s so much getting on the voter’s roll so you can vote, I think it’s more just for getting you to vote. I think that's the problem. Edinburgh, female, 18–24, low income, renting

Non-registration, therefore, is partly, but by no meansentirely, explained by age. As shown in Table 8, housingtenure also seems to relate to non-registration.


Owned Mortgage Rent – Rent – housing Rent – Other

outright local authority association private

Percentage not registered 0.9 1.7 2.1 4.6 15.6 36.0

Table 8: Non-registration by tenure

22

Non-registration is particularly high among the ‘Other’tenure group, but as this is a conglomeration of anumber of tenure types, and represents only a smallnumber of respondents (base 89), it should not beoverstated. The high rate in the privately rented sector(base 263) suggests that security of tenure and length of residence may have an impact on non-registration (in that relatively short periods of residence in privatelyrented rooms and flats makes registration difficult).

As noted above, students living away from home may be one section of the electorate that faces the addedobstacle of re-registering at their term-time address or travelling home to vote/arranging a postal vote. It is possible that this group will live in either universityaccommodation or privately rented flats. More generally,it seems that recent mobility has the strongest effect on non-registration, with around a fifth of those who have been resident in their current home for less than a year saying that they did not vote because they werenot registered.

Turning these figures around, we find that a greaterproportion (86%) of those who give non-registration astheir reason for non-voting have been resident in theircurrent homes for less than three years.


Under 1 year 1–2 yrs 3–4 yrs 5–10 yrs 11–15 yrs 16–20 yrs 21–30 yrs 31 yrs +

Base 437 596 575 1,168 617 445 590 611

Number not registered 85 25 7 5 3 1 2 0

Percentage not registered 19.5 4.2 1.2 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.3 0

Table 9: Non-registration by mobility

Chart 5: Non-registration as reason for non-vote, by mobility (base: 128)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Percentage of non-voters giving non-registration as reason for not voting

Under 1 year

1–2 years

3–4 years

5–10 years

11–15 years

16–20 years

21–30 years

31 years +

23

The qualitative research shows that the main method ofregistering to vote among younger people (aged 18–25)is by filling in the form posted to their current address.There may be some mileage in simplifying registrationprocedures – or at least making existing proceduresbetter known – but it should be remembered that of allthose in SHS who did not vote, only 10% claimed thiswas because they were not registered. Registration is an obstacle, particularly for those who are most mobile,but it is very much a secondary obstacle behind a moregeneral sense of ambivalence towards ‘politics’.

Levels of non-voting among key social groups

Age and gender

In both SPES and SHS no statistically significant variationwas found in the rate of non-voting across gender,although both showed a considerable and statisticallysignificant variation across age groups, a pattern whichheld when men and women were considered separately.


SPES 1999 SHS 1999

All Men Women All Men Women

18–24 38.7 36.3 44.4 54.7 53.9 55.3

25–34 44.9 49.3 40.6 40.0 41.6 38.8

35–44 31.1 31.7 30.5 30.2 33.6 27.0

45–54 24.4 22.1 27.1 22.8 26.7 19.6

55–64 15.4 10.9 17.1 18.8 16.5 20.6

65–74 17.7 17.9 17.5 19.2 18.4 19.8

75+* 13.9 8.8 18.1 20.1 13.8 22.8

Base: 1,482 667 815 4962 2,139 2,823

P = 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Note: all figures are row percentages not voting.

* In the case of the 75+ age group, the probability scores for men and women are 0.015 in SPES, and 0.009 in SHS, and in the 45–54 age group it is 0.042. Taking the significance level of 0.01 as the benchmark, we can say that gender differences in these age groups are statistically significant.

Table 10: Non-voting in 1999

24

When we look at each age category separately, mostvariation between men and women is found not to bestatistically significant. The only age groups within whichthere are statistically significant variations between thenon-voting rates of men and women are the oldest group(75+) where both surveys show statistically significantvariation. Given these results, we would conclude thatonly in the oldest age group does there seem to be adifferential rate of voting between men and women. Thismay well be explicable by the fact that women tend to livelonger than men, and that the mobility problems of veryold age may obstruct individuals from voting. In bothsurveys we find that women in the oldest age group are 9 to10 percentage points more likely not to have voted.

In general, we can say that the age effect on votingoutweighs that of gender. The key cut-off point in 1999seems to be the 35–44 group which holds a middleposition in both surveys between the relatively low non-voting of those aged 55+ and the relatively high non-voting of those aged 18–34.

Of the five focus groups that were recruited without aquota on likelihood of voting, those with 25–34 year oldscame across as more favourable to voting in the 2003Scottish Parliament elections than younger groups (thoseaged 18–24). The group that appeared least inclined tovote at the Scottish Parliament elections in 2003 was theyoung male, low income, renting group from Glasgow. In direct comparison with this group, the young femalegroup in Edinburgh appeared to be more positivetowards voting, as well as more knowledgeable aboutpolitics generally.

While young men showed a general disinterest in politics, they do, when pressed, have some politicalopinions and views on issues that they feel are relevant to them. This demonstrates that even among thisapparently disinterested group, some do have somepolitical opinions. Issues seen to be of relevance included:

• tax;• cost of living compared with Europe;• housing conditions;• refugees.

However, these opinions appear to be far less developed,and certainly less likely to be acted upon through voting,among young men than among young women. This maybe due to several reasons. Several of those in the femalegroup were parents, which arguably may make themmore focused on issues that are relevant to mainstreampolitics such as education and health. This group is alsoless ‘anti-authority’ (as noted in differences of opiniontowards the electoral register).

Considering the other focus groups among youngerpeople (students aged 20–25, those aged 25–34) there appears to be little difference between gender and attitudes towards voting. On the evidence of thefocus groups, those aged 25–34 appear more inclinedthan younger age groups to vote at future elections,including the Scottish elections in 2003.

Housing tenure

There is a statistically significant relationship betweennon-voting and housing tenure, with those in the non-local-authority rental sector two-and-a-half to three timesas likely not to have voted as those who own their homesoutright (see Table 11). This relationship between tenureand non-voting holds true when we control for gender,and within the tenure groups we find no statisticalsignificance between men and women. In particular, in SHS non-voting represents the majority responseamong those with private landlords – which may reflect amore transient lifestyle among those in the private sector.Indeed, some 29% of non-voters living in propertiesowned by private landlords claim that they did not vote in the Scottish Parliament election because they were not registered. Among non-voters as a whole, only 9%claimed not to be registered.


25

However, it may be that to some extent at least, housingtenure is working as a proxy for age. In SHS, the meanage of those in ‘owned outright’ homes was 62, while for those in the ‘private landlord’ group the average was39 (the mean age of the entire SHS sample was 49). InSPES the mean age of the entire sample is also 49, and63 for those who own their homes outright. Again there is some indication that age may play a crucial role in therate of non-voting. As we will discuss later in the report,the qualitative research suggests that age and non-voting appear, to some extent, to be related to wherepeople are in their life cycle. Those living in private rented accommodation may represent a social groupthat is still in a fairly transient position in their lives.


SPES 1999 SHS 1999

Owns outright 16.3 18.9 Owns outright

Buying on mortgage 27.8 27.0 Buying on mortgage

Rents – local authority 30.2 32.8 Rents – local authority

Rents – other 48.1 37.0 Rents – housing association

53.6 Rents – private

36.0 Rents – other

Base 1,482 5,050

P = 0.000 0.000

Note: all figures are row percentages not voting

Table 11: Non-voting in 1999 by tenure

Social class

There is also a clear and statistically significantrelationship between non-voting and social class with anapparent split between those in high status non-manualoccupations (i.e. Professionals and Intermediate) andthose in low status non-manual and manual occupations.1This relationship holds true when we consider men andwomen separately, although within each occupationalgroup there is no evidence of gender differences in non-voting (in SHS only the ‘Intermediate’ group provesto have a variation across gender, significant at the 0.05 level (P = 0.044)).

1 It should be noticed that variation across the Goldthorpe–Heath scale (as a means tomeasuring social class) in SPES was significant only at the 0.05 level (P = 0.025), andthat when men and women are considered separately across the GH scale we find nostatistically significant variation among either gender.

26

Issues relating to class and reasons for non-voting didarise particularly in the two lower income, renting focusgroups and, especially, in the all-male group. A possibleexplanation is the perception of the UK and ScottishParliaments representing ‘middle class’ interests, withpoliticians themselves viewed as being from middle class backgrounds. This leads to a feeling ofdisenfranchisement:

There is a very big class distinction and this classdistinction is only purely on the fact that people reallycan't relate to what’s happening in the government. All right these guys are on £90,000 a year. They dothis. They talk this. They talk that. I can't understandthis. I can't understand that. I don’t know about thisand I don’t know about that. Why the hell should I be bothered to vote?Glasgow, male, 18–24, low income, renting

Educational attainment

As with tenure and class, there also appears to be a significant relationship between non-voting andeducational attainment (SHS does not group educationalqualifications into a ‘highest gained’ variable with theresult that from this survey, we present only theproportions of graduates and of those with noqualifications who did not vote). The direction of thisrelationship, however, is not linear, with those withoutqualifications more likely to have voted than, for example, those with Highers.


SPES 1999 SHS 1999

All Men Women All Men Women

Professional 21.1 25.5 13.3 23.4 23.2 22.2

Intermediate 25.3 22.6 26.6 23.6 25.4 22.1

Skilled NM 29.6 31.0 26.0 32.1 33.5 31.5

Skilled M 29.4 27.4 34.0 35.7 36.4 32.6

Partly skilled 31.6 34.7 28.3 37.0 36.0 37.9

Unskilled 26.7 17.9 29.9 35.5 37.9 33.6

Base 1,348 675 651 3,021 1,475 1,540

P = 0.550 0.197 0.677 0.000 0.002 0.000


Table 12: Non-voting in 1999 by class

27

Education tends to work in opposition to age, given thatgraduates are, on average, younger than those withouteducational qualifications. In other words, youngerpeople tend to be less likely to vote, but those with adegree are more likely to vote despite disproportionatelycomprising younger people (as degree qualificationshave become more widespread in recent years).

Main source of income

Source of income also appears to have a close (andstatistically significant) relationship with non-voting, and this holds true when we consider men and womenseparately. Those with occupational pensions seem least likely to be non-voters, and women on state benefits and men on ‘other income sources’ are most likely not to have voted. Within each income source group, there is no significant variation betweenthe sexes. Again, however, there may be a strong ageeffect given that those on occupational/state pensionsare older than those in work or on benefits.

Household income

There also seems to be a complex relationship betweennon-voting and household income, although there issome variation between SPES and SHS findings. InSPES, those on the lowest incomes are most likely not to have voted, although there are only slight differencesamong the remaining income brackets. Among men itseems that those in the second-lowest income bracketare much more likely to be non-voters than others, but the variation among women is only found to besignificant at the 0.05 level. SPES data, therefore, do not show a clear pattern.


SPES SHS

Degree 18.4 24.5

Other higher degrees 26.3

H grade 33.5

O grade 27.0

CSE 41.8

None 27.5 31.2

Base 1,482

P = 0.001


Table 13: Non-voting in 1999 by educational attainment (SPES)

Total Men Women

Employment earnings 30.4 31.3 29.4

Occupational pensions 8.7 4.3 11.3

State pensions 20.2 13.9 24.0

State benefits 34.6 32.1 36.0

Other sources 33.3 37.8 28.6

Base 1,472 706 764

P = 0.000 0.000 0.003


Table 14: Non-voting in 1999 by main source of income(SPES)

Total Male Female

Total household income

Under £10,000 30.2 23.0 34.5

£10,000 to £19,999 21.4 37.4 26.0

£20,000 to £34,999 23.1 25.3 20.3

£35,000+ 19.8 15.7 24.5

Base 1,242 609 632

P = 0.000 0.000 0.019


Table 15: Non-voting in 1999 by household income (SPES)

28

SHS, which bands income in a different way, also throws up some puzzling patterns. Among the sample as a whole there seems to be a split between those witha household income above £20,000 (relatively unlikely to be non-voters) and all those with income below this(who are more likely to be non-voters). This pattern holdstrue among women, but there is no clear or statisticallysignificant pattern among men.

There is some limited evidence, therefore, that those inlower income households are more likely to be non-votersthan those in higher income households, but the patternis by no means linear and it may well be that, in fact, otherfactors such as age explain much of the variation.

Region

Scotland is a regionally diverse country, with differentialsupport for devolution in 1979 and 1997 (Bromley andMcCrone, 2002). In terms of reported vote in SPES andSHS, results were as follows:

In SPES, variation across area and variation across areaamong both men and women are statistically significant (P = 0.000). In SHS, however, while variation across areais statistically significant (P = 0.000), neither variationamong men (P = 0.033) or women (P = 0.027) is found to be significant at the 0.01 level. When each geographicalarea is considered separately, the only one in SPES toshow a statistically significant variation between men andwomen is Aberdeen and North East (P = 0.001). In SHS,however, no area shows significant gender variation.


Total Male Female

Net annual income

Under £6,000 29.2 29.4 29.0

£6,000 to £10,000 28.1 25.2 29.8

£10,000 to £15,000 30.7 33.2 28.8

£15,000 to £20,000 32.2 31.4 32.8

£20,000+ 24.1 27.5 20.8

Base 4,957 2,133 2,817

P = 0.000 0.067 0.000


Table 16: Non-voting in 1999 by household income (SHS)SPES SHS

Aberdeen and North East 30.7 40.0 Grampian

Dundee and Tayside 33.0 29.2 Tayside

Fife 26.2 27.6 Fife

23.0 Edinburgh

27.4 Lothian

Edinburgh and Lothian 20.1 24.9 Edinburgh & Lothian

Falkirk, Ochil and Stirling 27.8 26.2 Central

29.5 North Lanarkshire

26.6 South Lanarkshire

Lanarkshire and 20.2 28.1 LanarkshireCumbernauld

Glasgow 42.8 32.9 Glasgow

24.0 Ayrshire

26.0 Renfrewshire and Inverclyde

31.8 Dumbartonshire

Ayrshire, Renfrew 29.0 26.5 Ayrshire, Renfrewand Dumbarton and Dumbarton

Highlands and Islands 23.8 28.1 Highlands and Islands

Borders and South West 16.9 27.9 Border


Table 17: Non-voting in 1999 by region

29

In both surveys, relatively high levels of non-voting arefound in several areas, although there are importantdifferences between the two. Table 18, lists the areas byorder of magnitude according to whether or not they havea rate of non-voting higher or lower than the average.

Across both surveys, two areas – Glasgow, andAberdeen and North East/Grampian – have relatively high levels of non-voting, while Edinburgh has particularlylow levels of non-voting. SPES shows a greater range ofpercentage point differences across region (26 points)than SHS (17 points). We find little consistency whencomparing gender patterns across area in both samples.In SPES there appear to be very large rates of non-votingamong women in Aberdeen (48%); men in Tayside (38%);and Glaswegians of both sexes (47% men and 39%).

Low rates of non-voting are found among men in Aberdeen(19%); people living in Edinburgh of both sexes (21% and18%); Lanarkshire men (18%); and Borders/SW women(13%). All other values fall within the range 22–31%. InSHS, by contrast, it is Grampian men (45%) and women(37%) who show the highest propensity not to vote, andEdinburgh men (22%) the lowest, with all other values inthe range 23–34%.

In terms of official turnout figures for Scottishconstituencies in 1999, it is noticeable that the lowestturnout occurs in cities, with Glasgow having nine of the12 lowest, Aberdeen two, and Dundee one. The highestturnouts occurred in suburban areas, smaller towns andrural areas (see Appendix 2).


SPES 1999 SHS

High non-voting

Glasgow 42.8 40.0 Grampian

Dundee and Tayside 33.0 32.9 Glasgow

Aberdeen and North East 30.7 31.8 Dumbartonshire

Ayrshire, Renfrew and 29.0 29.5 North LanarkshireDumbarton

Falkirk, Ochil and Stirling 27.8 29.2 Tayside

All sample 27.6 28.6 All sample

Fife 26.2 28.1 Lanarkshire

Highlands and Islands 23.8 28.1 Highlands and Islands

Lanarkshire and 20.2 27.9 BorderCumbernauld

Edinburgh and Lothian 20.1 27.6 Fife

Borders and South West 16.9 27.4 Lothian

26.6 South Lanarkshire

26.5 Ayrshire, Renfrew and Dumbarton

26.2 Central

26.0 Renfrewshire and Inverclyde

24.9 Edinburgh and Lothian

24.0 Ayrshire

23.0 Edinburgh

Low non-voting


Table 18: Non-voting in 1999 by region

30

National identity

Whether or not people vote does not appear to be related to national identity, either as measured by‘forced-choice’ identity (‘If you had to choose, which best describes the way you think of yourself?’), or interms of a five-point Likert scale (‘Scottish not British’,through to ‘British not Scottish’).

Previous research (Paterson et al., 2001) has shown that people in Scotland wanted a parliament to makeScotland a better place to live rather than simply as anexpression of Scottish national identity, or, indeed, toextend democratic institutions for their own sake. In thisrespect, the Parliament is judged according to what it isable to achieve, i.e. its instrumental qualities, rather thansimply as an expressive national symbol. That is perhapswhy national identity as such – whether people forefrontbeing Scottish or being British – does not explain whetherpeople turn out to vote or not, or indeed their politicalchoices in any significant way.

To say that national identity in Scotland is not a significantdiscriminator of political behaviour and attitudes is to say that it is a pervasive framework of Scottish social and political culture, shared across a variety of politicalpersuasions. Unlike Wales perhaps, playing to ‘Scotland’does not operate as a revolving door such that those who are attracted to national iconography are counter-balanced by those who are alienated from it. North of the border, there are few significant cultural and linguisticdiscriminators which deter people from voting preciselybecause ‘Scottish’ is used.

Modelling social variablesThe review of factors relating to vote and non-vote describedin the previous sections of this report was followed up with an exploration of logistic regression models which issummarised in Table 19. A plus sign (+) indicates a positivestatistically significant association (e.g. the greater theage, the greater the propensity to vote), and a minus sign(-) indicates a negative, statistically significant association(e.g. the lower the income, the less likely people are to vote).Full details of each model are included in Appendix 3.

It is clear that age is by far the most significant determinantof non-voting, holding other variables constant. Housingtenure (being an owner–occupier), and education level(having a degree), are also positively significant, with (low)income the only other social variable to make a showing.This analysis confirms that the relationship between ageand voting is the most significant one across a range ofelection surveys, and requires more detailed exploration.


31


SPES 1999 SSAS 2001

Variables SP99 UK99 REF SP99 SP01 UK01

Gender –

Age + + + + + +

Class (working class) n/a n/a n/a

Salariat

Routine non-manual

Petty bourgeoisie

Manual foremen/supervisors –

Class (routine occupations) n/a n/a n/a

Employers, higher prof/managerial

Lower prof/managerial

Intermediate

Small employers/own account

Lower supervisory/technical

Semi-routine occupations +

Education (no qualification)

Degree + + +

Higher education + +

Highers

‘O’ grades

CSE +

Tenure (other rented)

Owns/mortgage + + + +

Rents: LA + + +

Rents: HA

Income (£35,000+)

Under £10,000 – – – –

£10,000 – £19,999 –

£20,000 – £34,999

Residence (10 years +) n/a n/a n/a

0–2 years –

3–9 years

Table 19: Influences on turnout

32

Age and non-voting

This initial review of the 1999 datasets suggests thatseveral factors relating to a person’s social status have an effect on their likelihood to not vote. Age differencesamong the sample as a whole are very striking, with thedata suggesting three broad age groups:

• Those aged 18–34 in 1999 (i.e. those born c.1965–81)were most likely to report that they had not voted in the1999 election.

• Those aged 45 or over (i.e. born in or before 1954) were least likely.

• Those aged 35–44 (born 1955–64) held, in both surveys,a middle position, although they tended somewhattowards the older groups.

A question which arises is whether this is an age or acohort effect. In other words, are young people unlikely to vote while young, but ‘grow’ into a voting habit, or hasthere been a generational shift in which younger groupsare less likely to vote, and will continue not to vote as theyget older? Related in part to this generational shift, wediscuss later in this report the effect of parental influenceas a reason why older people vote and why this does notappear to hold the same weight for younger people inencouraging them to vote.

There is, however, little by the way of longitudinal data with which to track an individual’s (non-)voting habitsover a lengthy period of time. We can, however, makesome judgements by looking at a number of Scottishsurveys and examining age and non-voting. Table 20looks at non-voting by age group in UK general elections in Scotland in 1987 (using the BES), 1992(SES), 1997 (SES) and 2001 (SSAS), and the 1999Scottish Parliament Election Survey (SPES).

It is noticeable that in every survey except SPES 1999, it is the youngest group who show the greatest likelihood of non-voting (it might be recalled that in the 1999 SHSthe 18–24 age group were most likely to be non-voters). A rough three-way split among 18–34 (high non-voting),35–44 (middle) and 45+ (low non-voting) can bediscerned in 1999 and 2001, but not in the other surveys.In 1987 the split would appear to have been between the18–24 group and the over 25s. In 1992 the pattern is notmarkedly clear, while in 1997 the spilt seems to occurbetween those aged 18–44 and those aged 45+. In allcases, non-voting is most frequent among the youngergroups. What we do not find here is a clear and consistentage split over the last decade. Instead, we seem to find a growing gap between the relatively young and therelatively old which may suggest a generational effect.

Table 21 considers cohorts, rather than age groups.Again the picture is unclear, largely because reportednon-voting has increased markedly among a number of groups. What this does suggest is that there is littlemileage in assuming that people will ‘grow into’ the habitof voting. For those born in the 1970s, for example, thereported rate of non-voting doubled between 1992 and2001, rising consistently across the four elections.


1987 1992 1997 1999 2001

8–24 32.2 24.2 30.2 38.7 57.0

25–34 14.7 17.6 24.8 44.9 51.1

35–44 15.2 10.6 21.4 31.1 32.9

45–54 9.6 6.8 11.3 24.4 22.0

55–64 15.0 13.2 12.7 15.4 21.1

65–74 14.3 16.1 13.3 17.7 14.1

75+ 11.5 20.0 13.8 13.9 20.5

Base 366 943 873 1,482 1,608

P = 0.040 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000


Table 20: Non-voting in 1987–2001 by age

33

Although these data are clearly limited, they seem tosuggest that the variation in levels of non-voting is moremarked among respondents born since 1971 than amongother cohorts. Taken as a trend, the cohorts born before1960 seem more stable in their reported non-voting,suggesting that those in the habit of voting are gettingolder, and will not be replaced by younger people‘growing into’ a voting habit.


1987 1992 1997 1999 2001

Born 1981+ n/a n/a n/a 41.2 61.8

1971–80 n/a 26.3 30.7 45.2 53.9

1961–70 31.4 16.0 24.2 38.8 41.7

1951–60 15.8 15.2 20.5 25.6 22.1

1941–50 12.5 6.4 11.6 19.9 21.5

1931–40 7.4 11.4 11.1 13.7 17.4

1921–30 15.2 13.5 10.8 16.0 15.3

Pre–1920 14.3 20.8 – 18.1 31.5


Table 21: Non-voting in 1987–2001 by age cohort

35Understanding non-voting –quantitative dataBoth SPES and SHS asked non-voters to explain why they had not voted. Non-voters can begenerally divided into two groups:those who cite ‘circumstances’ or obstacles for their non-voting,and those who express a degree of alienation from the politicalprocess, known as deliberate non-voters.

SPES asked non-voters for up to five reasons as to why they did not vote at the 1999 Scottish Parliamentelections, although the vast majority (about 95%) gaveonly one reason. SHS allowed for up to 18 reasons to be given, and although only a small minority (17%) gavetwo or more, this makes presentation of the data difficult. The surveys did not use identical items for codingresponses, although there was some overlap, asindicated in Table 22.

Reasons have been grouped into five broad categories:

• that the respondent would have voted but for somecircumstance or problem that arose;

• that the issues or the system were too complex;

• that respondents were not eligible to vote;

• that voting made no difference or the respondent had no interest in voting;

• and other (unspecified) reasons.

As shown in Table 22, in SPES over half of the non-votersclaimed that some ‘circumstance’ had arisen, with asignificant minority (29.5%) giving a ‘deliberate’ reason,while in SHS roughly equal proportions of non-votersgave a ‘deliberate’ reason as referred to ‘circumstances’.Here it should be noted that, because of the way SHSwas set out, a small number of non-voters – those, forexample, who gave both ‘circumstantial’ and ‘complex’reasons for not voting – are counted more than once.Hence the totals for each type of reason represent theproportion of non-voters who chose at least one of therelevant reasons, and the totals for all the types of non-voting sum to more than 100.

Scotland votes?: understanding non-voting – quantitative data

36


SPES SHS

Work prevented me 10.4 1.3 Bad weather

Sickness prevented me 8.4 4.7 Someone was ill

Away on election day 15.4 14.9 Away from home

Other commitments/no time 11.0 9.8 Too busy

Respondent had moved 1.8 3.5 Forgot, had intended to vote

Polling card/polling station problem 8.1 3.3 Proxy/polling station problem

Circumstantial 55.1 36.6 Circumstantial

Couldn’t decide between parties/candidates 5.0 7.2 Didn’t understand issues

Electoral system too complicated 0.7 1.9 Voting system complicated

Too complex 5.7 8.5 Complex

Not eligible to vote 5.2 5.7 Too young

- 9.4 Not registered

Not eligible 5.2 14.9 Not eligible

Deliberately abstained 10.6 6.0 No one I wanted to vote for

Couldn’t be bothered/not interested 14.5 23.9 Not interested

Vote wouldn’t have affected who won 0.4 7.6 Makes no difference

Never vote 1.3 8.2 Voting no point

Don’t believe Parliament should have been established 2.6 -

Deliberate 29.5 35.5 Deliberate

Other answer 4.6 13.2 Other answer

Base 422 1,446 Base


Table 22: Reasons given for not voting

37

Age and non-votingAcross the broad categories of non-voting reasons inSPES, there were no statistically significant differencesbetween men and women. When we examine agegroups, however, the variation in the table is border-linesignificant (P = 0.011), and suggests that older peopleare most likely to claim that non-voting was due to some unforeseen obstacle or circumstance, and the mid-cohort most likely to give a ‘deliberate’ reason. The other noticeable difference, which we would haveexpected, is that a much higher proportion in theyoungest age groups (about 10%) claimed that they were not eligible to vote. Indeed, if we factor out theineligible respondents, then the resulting cross-tabproves not to be statistically significant (P = 0.061).

Turning now to SHS – where again it should beremembered that some non-voters are counted morethan once in the separate non-voting groups – we see a slightly different pattern. Firstly the higher incidence of ineligibility should be noted, accounting for more thana quarter of the youngest non-voters, and one-tenth ofthose aged 45–54. It is also striking that in all the agegroups between 18 and 54 roughly equal proportionsgive ‘deliberate’ reasons or cite ‘circumstances’ toexplain their non-voting. In the age groups over 55, by contrast, respondents are more likely to blame‘circumstance’ than give ‘deliberate’ reasons, and this is particularly marked in the 65–74 group.


18–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55–64 65–74 75+

Circumstantial 60.4 51.9 51.9 50.0 66.7 64.7 68.3

Too complex 8.3 6.0 6.2 4.5 5.6 – 4.9

Not eligible 10.4 9.8 1.2 3.0 – – –

Deliberate 14.6 30.1 37.0 40.9 16.7 29.4 17.1

Other answer 6.3 2.3 3.7 1.5 11.1 5.9 9.8

Base 40 136 88 63 17 17 58


Table 23: Reason for non-voting by age (SPES)

18–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55–64 65–74 75+

Circumstantial 34.2 38.0 38.4 37.9 41.1 43.4 38.3

Too complex 12.0 8.6 8.0 5.7 13.7 6.9 8.3

Not eligible 27.2 13.3 8.3 9.8 5.5 3.4 0.8

Deliberate 33.5 39.8 42.0 39.7 35.6 31.0 32.5

Other answer 10.8 11.0 13.8 12.1 11.0 20.0 22.5

Base 158 347 276 174 146 145 120


Table 24: Reason for non-voting by age (SHS)

38

The most popular single reason given for non-voting inSHS was that the respondent was ‘not interested in theelection’, accounting for around a quarter of all thosenon-voters aged 18–64, and a fifth of those aged over 65.If we exclude those who claimed that they are not eligibleto vote, then this proportion is even higher in the youngerage groups.

This poses a particular question: how far can non-votingbe explained by attitudes towards the political process,the political parties and political institutions themselves? A subsidiary question relates to those who did not vote,but who claimed this was due to some form of‘circumstance’ to their voting. One might expect that theattitudes of this group towards the political process wouldbe broadly similar to that held by people who claimed thatthey had voted, that voters and ‘circumstantial’ non-voterswould have more positive attitudes towards politics than‘deliberate’ non-voters.

Non-voting and political attitudesIn terms of general interest in politics, we can discern aclear gradient among voters, ‘circumstantial’ non-votersand ‘deliberate’ non-voters.

The proportions answering ‘not very much’ or ‘none at all’to this question range between one third (34.1%) amongthose who said they had voted, to around a half (49.1%)of ‘circumstantial’ non-voters, to over two thirds (69.8%)of ‘deliberate’ non-voters. This would suggest that the‘circumstances’ facing some non-voters are perhaps oflesser importance than a fairly high level of disinterest: in other words, many non-voters are excusing rather than explaining their own non-voting. This seems to bepartially confirmed by a further question asking ‘Wouldyou say you cared a good deal which party did best inthe recent Scottish Parliament election or that you didn'tcare very much which party did best?’


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Didn't vote because not interested in the election

Note: All figures are percentages

18-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65-74

75+

Chart 6: Non-interest in the election, by ageVoter Non-voter Circumstantial Deliberate

A great deal 7.5 2.9 3.5 3.4

Quite a lot 21.2 7.6 9.3 5.0

Some 37.2 32.8 38.1 21.8

Not very much 29.0 37.4 34.5 41.2

None at all 5.1 19.3 14.6 28.6

Base 1,060 422 231 126


Table 25: How much interest do you generally have in whatis going on in politics?

Voter Non-voter Circumstantial Deliberate

Cared a good deal 73.2 38.7 50.2 17.4

Not care very much 26.4 60.5 48.9 82.6

Don’t know 0.5 0.7 0.9 –

Base 1,060 422 231 126


Table 26: Do people care about the Scottish Parliamentelection results?

39

Again we see the ‘circumstantial’ non-voters taking a middle position between voters and deliberate non-voters, and that almost half of the ‘circumstantial’ groupdisplayed a lack of interest in the outcome. Similarquestions were asked about whether it makes adifference which party wins elections to the ScottishParliament, Westminster and to local councils, or whetherthings carry on in much the same way regardless ofwhich party wins. As shown in Table 27, ‘circumstantial’non-voters are much closer to voters than they are to‘deliberate’ non-voters when asked ‘Some people saythat it makes no difference which party wins in elections,things go on much the same. How much of a differencedo you think it makes who wins in elections to theScottish Parliament/UK House of Commons/LocalCouncils?’ Another point should be noted from this table– even among voters, a substantial minority do not feelthat it makes much difference which party wins elections.

Are people consistent in their non-voting?We can explore this by comparing whether people votedin the Scottish Parliament election (and, if they did not,the reason they gave for not voting) to whether they saidthey had voted in the 1997 UK general election and in the1997 devolution referendum, as well as whether they saidthey would have voted had there been a UK election in1999. While a large majority of those who said they hadvoted in the Scottish Parliament election said that theyhad also voted, or would vote, with regard to the otherpolls, the situation among non-voters is less clear. Largemajorities (though not as large as found among voters orthe ‘circumstantial’ non-voters) said that they had votedin the 1997 UK general election, and would have voted inthe notional 1999 general election. However, almost halfof this group said that they had not voted in thedevolution referendum.

Among ‘deliberate’ non-voters, around half had notvoted, or would not vote, in the UK elections, whilealmost two thirds said they had not voted in thereferendum. In other words, there seems to be clearevidence that voters in 1999 regarded themselves asconsistent voters. Non-voters of both types were splitaccording to the nature of the poll, although it seemsclear that around half of ‘deliberate’ non-voters areconsistent non-voters.



Scottish Parliament 18.0 35.2 23.9 55.4

House of Commons 22.5 36.3 28.2 50.0

Local councils 28.9 32.4 32.5 60.0

Base 1,060 422 231 126

Note: all figures are percentages answering ‘not very much’ or ‘none at all’

Table 27: Do people think which party wins makes a difference? Voting behaviour at SP election in 1999

Voter Non-voter Circum-stantial Deliberate

Non-voter general election 1997 9.6 38.1 27.1 50.0

Non-voter 1997 referendum 18.4 55.1 47.1 64.2

Non-voter notional general election 1999* 3.3 31.1 20.6 50.4

Base 1,060 422 231 126

Note: all figures are percentages* Respondents were asked how they would have voted if there had been a UKgeneral election in May 1999. Percentages relate to those who said they would nothave voted in such an election.

Table 28: Are people consistent in their non-voting?

40

The electoral systemHow far might non-voting reflect unhappiness with thefirst-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system for Westminster,or, in the case of the Scottish Parliament, with theintroduction of a more complicated system? As Table 29 shows, there is little evidence that non-voters of either type are any different from voters in their attitudestowards FPTP, with roughly half of each group believingthat FPTP should be retained (the question asked was‘Some people say we should change the voting systemfor general elections to the UK House of Commons toallow smaller political parties to get a fairer share of MPs.Others say that we should keep the voting system for the House of Commons as it is to produce effectivegovernment. Which view comes closer to your own?’).

There are some differences in terms of those favouringchange, with voters and ‘circumstantial’ non-voters morelikely than ‘deliberate’ non-voters to believe FPTP shouldbe replaced by another system. Non-voters of bothtypes, and in particular ‘deliberate’ non-voters, are morelikely than voters to answer ‘don’t know’ to this question.

A slightly different picture emerges with the modified-AMS system adopted for the 1999 Scottish Parliamentelection. SPES included the question ‘Some peopleprefer the new way of voting for the Scottish Parliamentas they say it means all parties are fairly represented.Others say that the old way of voting used in elections to the UK House of Commons is better, as it produceseffective government. Which view comes closer to yourown? Should elections to the Scottish Parliament keep to the new way of voting, or, should elections to theScottish Parliament use the old way of voting?’

A majority of voters and ‘circumstantial’ non-voters are in favour of retaining this ‘new way’ of voting, althoughconsiderably more ‘circumstantial’ non-voters answer‘don’t know’ (perhaps a reflection of the fact that theyhave not actually experienced voting under the ScottishParliament system!). ‘Deliberate’ non-voters are evenlysplit on whether MSPs should be elected using the ‘new’or ‘old’ systems, with a quarter of them answering ‘don’t know’.

What both of these questions suggest is that simplychanging the electoral system would not encourage non-voters to vote. Indeed, with the proviso of the higherpercentage of ‘don’t knows’ among non-voters, thedifferences between voters and non-voters in terms oftheir preferences for voting systems are not significant.

Governing BritainNeither is there evidence that ‘deliberate’ non-voters areany more in favour of changing the way in which Britain is governed than those currently participating in theelectoral process. Most respondents, in all three groups,believe either that Britain’s system of governance ‘couldbe improved in small ways but mainly works well’ or thatit ‘could be improved quite a lot’. Only 13% of ‘deliberate’non-voters, as compared to 9% of voters, believe that it‘needs a great deal of improvement’.



Should change 41.7 36.5 40.7 30.6

Keep it as it is 53.7 50.5 49.6 52.9

Don’t know 4.7 12.7 9.3 16.5

Base 1,060 422 231 126


Table 29: Attitudes towards changing the electoral system


New way 63.2 50.6 58.0 39.2

Old way 31.2 30.3 25.7 37.5

Don’t know 5.7 18.8 15.9 23.3

Base 1,060 422 231 126


Table 30: Preference for ‘new’ and ‘old’ electoral systems

41

However, dividing responses between those who aregenerally positive about governance (i.e. those who feel itcannot be improved or that it mainly works well) and thosegenerally negative (that it could be improved quite a lot orneeds major improvement), we find that ‘deliberate’ non-voters are slightly more likely to hold a negative opinion(59%) than voters (53%) or ‘circumstantial’ non-voters(51%). The difference, however, is small and does notindicate any statistically significant divergence in opinion.2

Non-voters and the party systemTwo questions in SPES reveal a reservoir of cynicismabout the sincerity of political parties, their representatives, andtheir ability to change things when in power. Almost 85%of ‘deliberate’ non-voters agree or strongly agree thatpolitical parties are not interested in listening to the public,but only interested in their votes, compared to aroundtwo-thirds of both voters and ‘circumstantial’ non-voters:

With regard to Members of Parliament, there is againevidence of widespread disillusionment, and althoughthis appears to be highest among ‘deliberate’ non-voters,this is a difference in degree rather than substance. A majority across all groups feel MPs rapidly lose touchwith ‘ordinary’ citizens.


All figures are percentages Voter Non-voter Circumstantial Deliberate

Agree strongly 13.6 16.1 12.4 22.5

Agree 49.8 52.1 50.7 61.7

Base 1,060 422 231 126


Table 32: ‘Parties are only interested in people's votes, not in their opinions’


Agree strongly 12.5 16.6 12.1 25.6

Agree 52.5 52.1 55.8 49.6

Base 1,060 422 231 126


Table 33: ‘Generally speaking those we elect as MPs losetouch with people pretty quickly’


Works extremely well and could not be improved 1.0 1.2 1.3 0.8

Could be improved in small ways but mainly works well 44.0 40.2 43.3 34.2

Could be improved quite a lot 44.4 45.4 45.1 45.8

Needs a great deal of improvement 9.0 8.3 6.3 13.3

Don’t know 1.4 4.4 3.6 5.0

Base 1,060 422 231 126


Table 31: Opinions of ‘the present system of governing Britain’

2 The variation between voters and all non-voters is on the borderline of statisticalsignificance (P = 0.01), whereas variation between types of non-voter are notsignificant (P = 0.673)

42

As for feelings towards the major political partiesthemselves, there is a clear differential between votersand non-voters in terms of general apathy towards all the main political parties.

For each of the four parties, variation between voters and non-voters was found to be statistically significant (in each case P = 0.000), although the variationsbetween types of non-voters were not. Despite the lack of statistical significance among non-voters it does seem suggestive that among the ‘deliberate’ non-voters,‘neutrality’ (rather than actual negative feeling) is themost common response.

How far is non-voting related to perceptions that there islittle difference between the major parties? The followingtable shows responses to a question asking how much‘difference’ there is between named parties. There areclear and statistically significant differences (both P = 0.000)between voters and non-voters (with the latter more likely to believe there is little to differentiate the parties), but nosignificant variations between different types of non-voter.

Despite this, there is also evidence that non-voters of bothtypes are able to ‘align’ themselves with the major politicalparties. Respondents were asked: ‘Generally speaking,do you think of yourself as Conservative, Labour, LiberalDemocrat, Nationalist, or what?’. Table 36 notes theproportions who answered that they regarded themselvesas one of the major parties or of no party, who chose aminor party outside the proffered list, or who answered‘don’t know’. Across all groups a majority were able to‘align’ themselves with one of the major parties.

There is little evidence here that non-voters tend tosupport ‘minor’ parties which do not contest elections.Rather, they are more likely not to associate themselveswith any party.

In terms of political parties’ ability (or indeed desire) tosecure meaningful change, a large majority of ‘deliberate’non-voters (79%) ‘agree’ or ‘agree strongly’ that the politicalhue of government ‘doesn’t really matter’ as ‘things go onmuch the same’. This compares with small majorities ofvoters (51%) and ‘circumstantial’ non-voters (57%).



Conservatives 28.7 41.6 39.4 50.0

Labour 27.7 36.3 31.3 45.5

Liberal Democrats 47.5 61.2 55.1 68.3

SNP 21.0 38.6 32.9 46.3

Base 1,060 422 231 126

Note: all figures are percentages answering ‘neither in favour nor against’

Table 34: Feelings towards political parties


Labour and SNP 11.7 21.8 20.9 19.8

Conservative and Liberal Democrat 30.8 37.0 32.9 44.4

Base 1,060 422 231 126

Note: all figures are percentages answering ‘not much difference between…’

Table 35: Perceived differences between parties


Agree strongly 5.9 11.5 5.3 20.0

Agree 45.4 52.9 51.3 59.2

Base 1,060 422 231 126


Table 37: ‘It doesn't really matter which party is in power, inthe end things go on much the same’


Major party (Con, Lab, LD, SNP) 89.9 75.2 78.2 66.7

Minor party 2.1 1.2 1.7 1.7

None 6.2 21.6 17.3 30.8

Don’t know 0.5 1.5 2.2 0.8

Base 1,060 422 231 126


Table 36: Party alignment

43

There is, however, and perhaps surprisingly, widespreadagreement across all three groups that ‘Voting is the only way people like me can have any say about how the government runs things’. Levels of agreement (thoseagreeing or strongly agreeing) are highest among voters(76%), but are also high among ‘circumstantial’ and‘deliberate’ non-voters (70% and 67%), with little difference in the proportions disagreeing.

The question, of course, is a little ambiguous as it ispossible to agree that voting is the only way that ‘ordinarypeople’ can have their say in government, while believingthat their ‘say’ was actually fairly weak! Nevertheless, thereis certainly little evidence that the ‘deliberate’ non-voterbelieves that non-electoral political activities are moreeffective in influencing the government.

Non-voting and institutional satisfactionSPES also asks a series of question, relating to how well (or badly) respondents think non-governmental and privateinstitutions are run in Scotland. Can we discern higher levelsof dissatisfaction among non-voters, in particular of the‘deliberate’ variety?

Table 39 summarises responses to the question: ‘I am nowgoing to read out a list of institutions in Scotland. From whatyou know or have heard about each one, can you saywhether, on the whole, you think each institution is well runor not well run in Scotland?’. It can be seen that there is littleevidence here that non-voters are any less satisfied with

these Scottish institutions than voters. Dissatisfaction with the NHS, state schools and trade unions is virtuallyidentical across all three groups, while ‘deliberate’ non-voters are a little more dissatisfied than voters with localgovernment and the legal system, and more satisfied withthe banks. However, differences are not marked, and itshould be noted that dissatisfaction with the NHS and local government is high in all three groups. ‘Deliberate’non-voters do not seem significantly less satisfied withScotland’s non-political institutions than voters. Thissuggests that they are not expressing institutional alienation by not voting in elections.

Non-voting and civic participation How does voting behaviour relate to other forms of civic and political activity and participation? Do non-voterscompensate for their abstention by engaging in other formsof political activity and protest, or perhaps by becominginvolved in other issue groups that are not directly related to the political process? Or do non-voters also tend to berelatively apathetic in terms of other types of civic andpolitical participation? Do those who vote also tend to be quite active in other areas?

Although the most recent Scottish survey (2001) does notask any questions relating to these other forms of activity,the next most recent (the 2000 Scottish Social AttitudesSurvey) contained substantial modules examining ‘Social



Agree strongly 17.4 10.0 11.5 5.8

Agree 58.1 58.1 58.8 60.8

Neither agree nor disagree 6.4 10.3 10.2 10.8

Disagree 17.4 16.9 15.5 14.2

Disagree strongly 0.6 3.4 2.7 6.7

Base 1,060 422 231 126


Table 38: ‘Voting is the only way people like me can haveany say about how the government runs things’


National Health Service 48.6 49.6 49.6 48.8

Local government 57.4 53.3 48.7 62.0

State schools 32.8 33.6 31.2 35.6

Legal system 37.5 37.2 32.9 46.6

Banks 21.0 19.8 22.1 12.5

Press 42.7 40.2 40.9 36.3

Trade unions 36.3 34.5 33.4 37.5

Base 1,060 422 231 126

Note: all figures are row percentages choosing ‘not very well run’ or ‘not at all well run’

Table 39: Satisfaction with institutions in Scotland

44

Capital’ and ‘Democracy and Participation’. The responsesto these questions enable us to compare voting behaviourwith other forms of civic and political participation in threekey respects: membership of national or internationalorganisations such as the National Trust or Greenpeace;membership of local organisations such as neighbourhoodcouncils or parent teacher associations; and propensity to engage in various forms of protest. These factors werecompared with voting or non-voting at the 1997 generalelection (respondents were not asked about voting at the1999 Scottish Parliament election).

The full list of organisations addressed by this question was:

• The National Trust for Scotland;

• Royal Society for the Protection of Birds;

• Friends of the Earth;

• World Wildlife Fund/ Worldwide Fund for Nature;

• Greenpeace;

• Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland;

• other wildlife or countryside protection group;

• Ramblers Association;

• other countryside sport or recreation group;

• Urban conservation group;

• Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

Ideally, we would have liked to explore voting behaviouramong members of each of these organisations, especiallywith a view to comparing members of more ‘radical’ bodieslike CND and Greenpeace with those of more ‘conservative’bodies such as the National Trust or RSPB. Numbers are,however, too small to allow us to do this with any sort ofconfidence (this is reflected by the fact that 85% ofrespondents are members of none of these organisations).What we have done is to look at participation in a moreaggregate sense by examining voting among those whoare a member of none of the bodies listed, one of thebodies listed, and two or more.

Of ‘non-members’, 74% claimed to have voted at the 1997 election (slightly less than the overall figure of 76%),but the level of voting rose markedly to 87% among those who were a member of one organisation and 93% for thosewho were members of two or more (although care shouldbe exercised because numbers at this point become quite small). Thus there is no evidence to suggest thatparticipation of this sort is an alternative to voting. Rather,civic participation in the form of membership of national orinternational organisations is more likely to be an indicatorof high voter participation.

A second question asked about membership of localorganisations as follows:

• tenants’/residents’ association;

• parent-teachers’/ school parents' association;

• board of school governors/School Board;

• parish, town or community council;

• neighbourhood council/forum;

• Neighbourhood Watch Scheme;

• local conservation or environmental group;

• other local community or voluntary group;

• voluntary group to help sick/elderly/children/othervulnerable group.

This question presented similar obstacles to the analysis of individual organisations due to the relatively lownumbers involved (this time overall non-membership was80%), although on this occasion there is a less obvioussplit between radical and more conservative bodies. Thesame ‘aggregate’ strategy used with national/internationalmembership was applied to local participation, with similarresults. Again, there is a clear difference between non-members and members. Of those who were members of no local organisations, 74% were voters, but this rose to86% for those who were members of one local body. On this occasion, voter participation declined slightly to 83% for those who belonged to two or more organisations. Thiscould be an artefact of the low numbers in this category, ormerely an indication that voting patterns are likely to be


45

related to membership or non-membership, but notaffected by multiple membership.

Propensity to engage in various forms of protestRespondents were asked whether they would participate invarious forms of political protest in relation to parliamentarylegislation that they considered to be unjust or harmful, andalso whether they had undertaken any of these actions toprotest about government action they thought unjust andharmful. The full list of actions was as follows:

• contact my MP or MSP;

• speak to an influential person;

• contact a government department;

• contact radio, TV or a newspaper;

• sign a petition;

• raise the issue in an organisation I already belong to;

• go on a protest or demonstration;

• form a group of like-minded people.

We analysed responses to these questions in anaggregate fashion by categorising people as follows:

• those who would do, or have done, none of these things;

• 1 or 2 of these things;

• 3 or 4;

• and 5 or more.

Not surprisingly, rates of expressed willingness to engagein protest are considerably higher than rates of actualprotest. If we consider first the number of acts of protestthat people would consider engaging in, among those who said ‘none’, 69% voted at the election. Voting ratesare noticeably higher among those who would considersome form(s) of protest, ranging from 75% to 78%, but the actual number of protest actions does not appear to make a significant difference.

The most important factor in terms of correlation withvoting behaviour is the distinction between protesters and non-protesters, rather than the actual extent of protest.However, even this is not a strong finding: there is not alarge difference between the two groups, and the numberssaying that they would not engage in any form of protestare in fact quite small, urging caution about anyconclusions based on these data.

If we look at actual protest, the findings are rather different.A much higher overall proportion have not engaged in anyacts of protest, but their levels of voting are only slightlylower than those in our first category of protestors (1–2acts). Voting among these two groups is 73% and 76%respectively. The most significant division in this instanceappears to be between the first category of protestors andthe two categories who claim to have engaged in moreacts of protest. Voting levels among these respondents are much higher: 93% in the 3–4 category and 92% in the5+ category. We should, however, once more note thatnumbers in these two groups are relatively small, so weshould be careful when interpreting the data.

Although these findings are somewhat different in degree,then, they suggest that political protest is positively ratherthan negatively correlated with propensity to vote. In otherwords, there is no evidence to suggest that protest is analternative form of political activity to voting.

Non-voting and informationWe might expect that people’s satisfaction with the meansof electing politicians to the institutions of government, and the extent of their knowledge of these institutions, may influence whether or not they choose to vote.

SPES 1999 asked about the advert and leaflet issued to explain the new system. In broad terms, non-voters were twice as likely as voters to claim that they had notseen the advert (26% to 14%), or the leaflet (39% to 20%).Nevertheless, there was little evidence that eitherdocument had dissuaded non-voters from voting – thedifferentials among those who had seen them for bothvoters and non-voters were broadly similar. For example,among non-voters who had seen the advert, 43% said that


46

they had found it clear, and 20% unclear, compared with54% and 28% of voters respectively. As regards the leaflet,and focusing on those who claimed to have seen it, 33%of non-voters found it clear and 14% found it unclear(compared with 59% and 19% of voters respectively). In short, it does not seem as if either the advert or theleaflet had sufficient effect on whether people voted or not.

The 1999 survey also carried a set of quiz-type questionsexploring the knowledge-levels of the electorate.Respondents were asked to reply using a five-point scaleranging from ‘definitely true’ to ‘definitely not true’. One set examined the responsibilities of the Parliament:

• ‘The Scottish Parliament will not be able to change the basic rate of income tax in Scotland’ [false];

• ‘The Scottish Parliament will control the way in which the Scottish Office’s budget is spent’ [true];

• ‘The UK government, not the Scottish Parliament, will make all decisions about defence’ [true].

There was little significant difference between voters and non-voters as regards their knowledge base on these matters. Both voters and non-voters identified thelast two statements correctly, but were similarly confusedabout the capacity of the Parliament to change income taxrates. Voters split 43% to 47% true to false, and non-voters, 44% to 39%, indicating that levels of knowledge per sewere not determinants of voting.

Respondents were also asked about the new voting system in Scotland, with a battery of true/false statements. By and large, voters and non-voters gavesimilar responses, although the latter had much higher levels of ‘don’t knows’ (dk in Table 40):

The other items in Table 41 betrayed more confusion, for voters and non-voters alike:


All figures are percentages* Voters Non-voters

‘You are allowed to vote for the same party on the 1st and 2nd vote’ [true] 8 (10 dk) 56 (29 dk)

‘People are given two votes so they can show 1st and 2nd preferences’ [false] 60 (10 dk) 56 (20 dk)

‘Party lists will be allocated to try to make sure each party has a fair share of the seats as possible’ [true] 77 (20 dk) 50 (31 dk)


* Percentages given are for those agreeing with the statement, and, below, percentage saying they don’t know. The residual percentage in each case represents mainly thosesaying that the statement is definitely or probably false.

Table 40: Knowledge of electoral system

Voters Non-voters

‘People are given 2 votes so they can show their 1st and 2nd preferences’ [false] 60 (10 dk) 56 (20 dk)

‘Unless a party wins at least 5% of the 2nd vote, it is unlikely to win any regional party list seats’ [true] 47 (31 dk) 31 (44 dk)

‘No candidate who stands in a constituency contest can be elected as a regional party list member’ [false] 29 (35 dk) 19 (50 dk)


Table 41: Knowledge of electoral system

47

These data show that voters and non-voters had broadlysimilar levels of knowledge, although non-voters hadsignificantly higher levels of ‘don’t knows’. Given thesebroad similarities, it is again unlikely that people decidewhether or not to vote simply on the basis of theirknowledge of the electoral system.

Given that young people are far less likely to vote than their elders, we explored whether or not their decision tovote was related to their levels of knowledge. Young non-voters (18–24 year olds) were twice as likely not to haveseen the advert as voters (38% to 16%), although similarproportions of voters and non-voters alike claim to haveread the leaflet (45%). As regards the ‘quiz’ on the votingsystem, young voters and non-voters were similar either to their older compatriots, or to each other.

On three items, however, young non-voters weresignificantly different from young voters:

• 37% thought they could vote for the same party twice(compared with 83% of young non-voters);

• 13% thought that a party would not win seats unless it won 5% of the second vote (38% of young voters);

• 13% believed that constituency candidates could notstand for list seats (26% of young voters).

There was a significant improvement in the knowledgegradient for those aged 25–34 for both voters and non-voters alike, suggesting that while non-voting generally isnot dependent on knowledge levels, there are significantgaps among young non-voters aged 18–24 in particular.

There are no questions in the most recent Scottish surveys that attempt to explore political knowledge orunderstanding. The 2001 British survey does ask four ‘true or false’-style questions that aim to measure levels of knowledge about the post-devolution settlement, butthese were only asked in England. Nevertheless, we cantry to make some assumptions about what these might tell us about levels of knowledge in general and how theymight relate to voting and non-voting. The questions asked whether Scottish Westminster MPs could vote

on legislation pertaining only to England; whether it hadbeen decided to cut the number of Scottish MPs atWestminster; if the Scottish Parliament could increasebenefit levels in Scotland; and whether London was theonly English region with an elected regional assembly.

We constructed a scale variable to measure voterknowledge in general based on these four questions(crude, but indicative). Two ‘points’ were given for a correctanswer, one point for ‘don’t know’ and zero for a wronganswer. This analysis indicates that respondents’knowledge of these issues is generally poor. Less than 1%answered all four questions correctly, and less than 20%scored more than four (the equivalent of four ‘don’tknows’). The ‘mean score’ is 3.6, but more interesting fromour perspective is that there is virtually no difference in thismean between voters and non-voters. In fact, non-votersshow a (very marginally) better level of knowledge.

Non-voting and attitudes to electoral systemsRecent Scottish data relating to voting systems are notplentiful. Nevertheless, we can attempt to explore thesepossible relationships to some degree by combining whatdata we do have from the most recent Scottish and Britishsurveys. There is no question in SSAS 2001 on changingthe voting system. There is in SSAS 2000, and this showsno clear relationship with voting and non-voting. Supportfor changing the voting system is higher among those who voted in the 1997 general election (38%) than amongthose who did not vote (34%). But opposition to change is also higher for voters (56%) than for non-voters (52%).This apparent anomaly is accounted for by the muchhigher proportion of ‘don’t knows’ among non-voters (13% compared to 6% for voters). Hence we cannot saythat abstention appears to stem from dissatisfaction withthe voting system per se.

In SSAS 2001 there was a question gauging opinion on thepresent system of governing Britain, which is a rather moregeneral question than that relating to the voting system.This provides some evidence to suggest that more generallevels of dissatisfaction with systems of government couldbe related to non-voting. A total of 42% of those who votedin the 1997 general election thought that the system of


48

government ‘could not be improved’ or ‘could only be improved in small ways’. Among non-voters thecorresponding figure was 37%. Of voters, 58% believedthe system could be improved quite a lot or a great deal,compared to 60% of non-voters. Hence, althoughdifferences are not large, the figures do suggest that non-voters are more likely to be dissatisfied with thecurrent system of government.

The suggestion that non-voters are not turned off byelection systems per se, but, compared with voters, have a larger propensity to be neutral/have no opinion, is reinforced by evidence from the 1999 SPES studyshown in Table 42.

These patterns are reinforced in the responses in Table 43.

Scotland votes?: Understanding non-voting – quantitative data

Voters Non-voters

Prefer regional candidate to party list?

Agree strongly/agree 43.3 39.6

Neither agree/disagree 27.9 27.1

Disagree/disagree strongly 20.2 6.1

Can’t choose 6.9 23.2

New voting system much fairer?





New voting system will lead to unstable govt?





Parties should tell coalition partner?*





Base 873 292


Table 42: Attitudes towards electoral systems (1)

49

Likewise, voters and non-voters do not diverge significantlyin terms of using the voting system for council elections, or on gender balance.


Voters Non-voters

Use new system for council elections?





Parties should have equal male/female candidates?







Voters Non-voters

System gives too much power to small parties?





Use new system for UK general elections?





Parties should decide list seat MSPs?





More point voting if all votes count?





Parties have too much control over list candidates?





Base 873 292



51Understanding non-voting –qualitative research

We explored reasons for non-votingin more depth in the qualitativeresearch. The reasons provided bypeople tend to be of a motivationalnature. Obstacles to voting appearto be less prominent.

The following verbatim comment reflects a typical view that motivating people to vote is central to improving turnout:

That’s the case with most folk. Anybody that lives inEdinburgh is within five or ten minutes of a primaryschool. Their main reason can't be that they can’t bebothered because of the hassle involved in voting.They obviously can’t be bothered voting full stop and they just use that as a scapegoat. Edinburgh, female, 18–24, low income, renting

The qualitative research identified several themes relatingto non-voting:

• lack of interest in politics;

• voting not making any difference;

• no difference between parties;

• negative behaviour;

• not relating to elected representatives;

• parties not delivering on promises;

• negative publicity;

• expectations of the Scottish Parliament;

• life cycle as determinant of non-vote.

Scotland votes?: understanding non-voting – qualitative research

52

Lack of interest in politicsThe focus groups found a lack of interest in politics,particularly among younger people. It would appear that lack of interest is closely related to a lack ofunderstanding of politics, which is often cited as a reason for non-voting:

I didn’t understand the election. I didn’t vote in the election because I didn’t understand, didn’t have a scooby who was bringing in this policy, whowas bringing in that policy, who was going to bring in that policy. Glasgow, male, 18–24, low income, renting

I don’t understand any of it. I’m not going to vote justbecause somebody tells me. My dad used to say tome just go and use your vote. I would go and vote thisor I would go and vote the one that got 6%, the LoonyParty, or something. Edinburgh, female, 18–24, low income, renting

There are perhaps several reasons for this. One possibilityis that a lack of interest in politics itself precludesunderstanding and that a disinterested person will makelittle effort to pay attention to or understand politics. Thisis perhaps a result of not seeing a connection betweentheir everyday lives and politics. That many youngerpeople do not engage with many of the issues that aredominant in mainstream politics is symptomatic of theirnot seeing how ‘politics’ affects them. Interestingly,younger people (18–25) also tended not to engage in any other alternative forms of politics, suggesting theywere not just disillusioned with mainstream politics butwith the idea of politics more generally.

Another reason for non-participation is a feeling thatunderstanding politics requires a level of passion andcommitment, with many young people saying they arenot prepared to give this to something they don’t identify with. This was outlined by a participant in the group of students, a group that, perhaps surprisingly, alsoshowed a general lack of interest in politics:

I think a lot of folk think you have to have a real passion and a real interest in politics to understand it a bit more and they are put off by that. Glasgow, student, 20–25

Many find the language of politics, as used by politiciansand the media, confusing and off-putting, leading themto ignore what is happening politically. While particularlypronounced among young people with low income, thistheme came up across the programme of focus groups:

You don’t really know what they’re talking aboutbecause the common person doesn’t understandwhat’s going on as to the decisions in Parliament and stuff.Glasgow, male, 18–24, low income, renting

When you see it on the TV you’re like right OK, I canonly understand a couple of words he's saying there,now he's gone in to pure legal jargon which youraverage person doesn’t really know unless they’vebeen to university for about five years. Glasgow, male, 18–24, low income, renting

Perhaps there are more ‘sociological’ reasons at playwhen considering why people are less likely to vote?Certainly, in some cases, non-voting may be related tonot having an issue to install enough interest for peopleto vote on. Considering the young woman below, shedoes not appear to see any real issues that will inspireher to vote:

We live in a fairly decent society, none of us are reallystruggling and poverty stricken, so we just think wellit’s just going to continue this way, so I’ll not bother.Edinburgh, female, 18–24, low income, renting


53

Voting does not make any differenceThere is a perception among some that one individual’svote will make little difference in the bigger picture of anelection. There are two main strands to this argument for not voting. The first is disillusionment, that votingsimply does not make a difference. This may prove to be a particular barrier to younger people who may nothave voted in the past and say they have little interest in politics. In this respect, non-voting may be related to lack of interest:

I think a lot of it is to do with being disillusioned with it all and just thinking ‘what difference is it going to make if I vote? Edinburgh, female, 18–24, low income, renting

Another possible reason may be related to the electoralprocess. The first-past-the-post system tends to supportthe larger parties which have a chance of winning, withthe smaller parties out of the running. Furthermore, votescast in each constituency for the parties that do notcome first are then, in effect, discarded. This is theprocess that most people tend to be thinking of whenthey consider the question of ‘voting’. The following viewtends to be shared by older people (those 25+) includingthose that are currently voters or have been in the past:

I don’t vote because no matter what you vote it’salways at the end of the day, and it has been for aslong as I can remember, the same parties who aregetting in no matter. What’s the point in going all theway down, marking your X, going away back up to the house, when it doesn’t matter anyway?Peebles, 25–34

No difference between the partiesNot perceiving a difference between political parties isalso a de-motivating factor to voting. This appears to bea common theme, particularly among older people andespecially those who have voted in the past but say theyare unlikely to in the future. Perceptions tend to based ata UK level, with many of those citing this as a reason fornot voting comparing the Conservative and Labour

parties at Westminster. However, this perception doesappear to have filtered through to the Scottish Parliament,even if participants do not have ‘Scottish’ parties in mind.The expectation that this won’t change precludes somepast voters from voting next May:

I think the party system is probably less extremist than it ever was, the far left and the far right. Like I saidearlier, it’s all just wishy washy. They’re all very similarnow. None of them are saying we’ll definitely do this.For example, the Tories came in, privatised everything,the Labour Party come in, you think they’ll nationaliseit. Oh no, they privatised even more. What’s the point?Dundee, 35–45, income up to £15,499, voted in the past but not

certain to vote in 2003

You don’t see any changes, it’s like one big party.They’ve kind of merged in to each other.Kilmarnock, 35–45, income up to £15,500, voted in past but

not certain to in 2003

This point of view tends to be shared by older people,particularly those who are not ‘certain’ to vote in 2003.

Negative behaviour Sometimes, not perceiving a distinction between partiesalso ties in with other reasons given for not voting, suchas not being able to decide who to vote for, or being‘turned off’ by what is seen as the confrontational natureof politics. The issue of ‘confrontation’ in politics tends to be viewed in the same way as negative campaigning.Many find this off-putting when trying to develop aninformed opinion about who to vote for. This view is particularly held by women:

I get really despondent when I hear things like that,people slagging each other off. You think they two arejust out to have a go at each other. They’re not reallyinterested or care…they’ve come out with this weepolicy, yes we’ll fling that in, let’s fling that in and youjust think what’s the point?Kilmarnock, 25–34


54

I don’t vote very often because I never know who toactually vote for. One party will say one thing, one partywill say another, so which one do you vote for? Alsothere's a lot of in-house bickering, every time I read aparliamentary report, a local MP is usually slagging offanother local MP so they’re not actually dealing with thesituation, they’re just fighting. That's why I don’t vote.Peebles, 25–34

Not relating to elected representativesA particularly strong theme running through the young(18–24) male group was that elected representativesappear to be ‘a different class’. This raises the questionof how MSPs or MPs can represent this group when theyare perceived to be from entirely different backgroundsand not sharing the same social experiences of ‘ordinarypeople’. The salary of elected representatives isparticularly brought into question. Many feel that electedpoliticians are paid too much and are ‘all in it for themoney’, although this perception is often based onlimited knowledge of the work that their electedrepresentatives actually do:

Because at the end of the day the government…whatis the government supposed to be for? It’s supposedto work for the people but the people, at the end of the day, these people are getting paid £90,000 a year. Your average guy, I earn under £8,000 a year.Glasgow, male, 18-24, low income, renting

The reasons we can't relate to them is because theystay in all their smart houses. They don’t have to gothrough what we have to go through, all the poor areasor whatever. For me it’s such a slum. They don’t haveto put up with that at all. Police always coming up toyour door to check that everything is all right. Theydon’t need any of that. They’ve got their life sorted –big houses, mansions, whatever.Glasgow, male, 18-24, low income, renting

The only thing I’ve got against MSPs and MPs, they get paid far too much for the jobs that they do, I think.Put me in there. I’ll quite happily do it.Edinburgh, female, 18-24, low income, renting

Certainly the amount of money that seems to be going in an MSP’s pocket over and above what they’re supposed to be earning.Kilmarnock, 25–34

Parties not delivering on promisesThere is a feeling that political parties are not deliveringon their promises – a common source of mistrust inpoliticians. While some younger people (18–25 year olds)say they do not relate to politicians, older people (25+),including voters who are not ‘certain’ to vote in 2003,often refer to being let down by politicians and politicalparties. This is cited as a de-motivating factor, as votingis perceived not to be an effective way of holdingpoliticians to account for delivering on their policies:

It’s a waste of time voting because they’ll just do what they want and then take the money and run. Peebles, 45–60, income over £15,500, voted in the past but

not certain in 2003

The perception that political parties are not delivering isgiven as a direct reason for not voting. For example, inthe case of the respondent below who recently receivedUK citizenship and was an active voter, the feeling that‘nothing happening’ has led them to doubt whether theywill vote in future. As with many reasons for not voting,the perception of parties not delivering is related to otherreasons – notably, not understanding ‘political jargon’:

I came to this country and eventually I managed tovote. I went to vote. For three, four years, I went to vote. I’m voting and I'm hoping that after a year forsome improvement, it’s a wee bit different. It’s still the same, if not worse.Kilmarnock, 35–45, usually vote but not certain to in 2003


55

I still say it boils down to any party offers you the worldand doesn’t deliver. That's why people don’t vote. Andbecause of the jargon they cannot understand. If youcan't understand something what are you voting for? Dundee, 35–45, Income up to £15,499, voted in the past but

not certain in 2003

Such perceptions are perhaps related to how politics isportrayed in the media. In several of the groups it wassuggested that ‘negative’ media coverage sometimesclouds any of the successes secured by the ScottishParliament and its parties.

Negative publicityWhen asked where they get most of their informationabout politics from, printed press and television mediaare the most commonly identified sources. Some feel theway the media portray the Scottish Parliament has had adetrimental effect on their assessments of the institution.As in the case of the young woman below, negativepublicity may create scepticism about politics. It mayalso be the case that negative publicity puts people offtrying to understand politics. Some criticism exists,particularly among older groups, of the publicity theParliament has been receiving:

I think all you actually hear is the negativity just now. I don’t think there's anything positive brought in to it. All you hear is what they’ve spent on it, what’shappening, any scandal that’s happening within theparty. You never actually get to hear anything good andthe things that might be good, the breastfeeding issue,it’s just whitewash because you just can’t be botheredlistening to it any more because you think what’scoming up tomorrow? No doubt somebody will havean affair with somebody…I just totally bypass itbecause I can’t be bothered with it.Edinburgh, female, 18–24 low income, renting

Things like that give it a bad name and that’s all youget. You’re probably getting all these bad reports and all these things, they do this, they do this forthemselves. Nobody has turned round and said ‘what have they actually done?’ They must have done something. The only thing they’ve really done is this hunting thing which I don’t think they askedanybody if they wanted to do it.Kilmarnock, 35–45, income up to £15,499, voted in past but


Expectations of the Scottish ParliamentThe theme of political parties not delivering on promisesto some extent ties in with a general perception of theScottish Parliament not meeting the expectations of theScottish people. Many people found the referendumcampaign fairly emotive, contributing to high expectationsof what the Parliament was going to achieve. However,many now express disappointment at what the Parliamenthas achieved since 1999 and this is likely to have a crucialrole in (de)motivating people to vote in 2003.

These perceptions are, however, often based on limitedknowledge of what the Parliament and its parties haveachieved. Taking the group of 20–25 year old students as an example, when asked if there are any policies that have resulted from the establishment of a ScottishParliament that may have affected their lives (and aftersome time and probing by the moderator), oneparticipant mentioned tuition fees! It was clear that this issue – a direct result of there being a ScottishParliament – was not at the forefront of this group’sminds, even while discussing the Scottish Parliament in such an environment.

This limited knowledge of what the Parliament has‘achieved’ was common throughout the programme of focus groups, encompassing all age and socio-economic groups. This suggests a need to highlight, in a non-political way, what has been achieved since1999 – one example might be information about thenumber of bills passed through the Scottish Parliament in the average year compared to Westminster.


56

Life cycle as determinant of non-voteA key finding from the scoping study phase of the projectwas the effect of age on propensity to vote. One possiblereason for non-voting is ‘life cycle’ or ‘life stage’, closelyrelated with age. Perhaps, as people acquire moreresponsibility in their lives they will become moreengaged in the issues of mainstream politics such aseducation, the economy, or health? Certainly, youngpeople’s expectations seem to be different from those of their elders. When it comes to politics they are possibly at a period in their lives when politics and votingmay appear less relevant to them, and the qualitativeresearch found younger people less inclined to say they were ‘interested’ in politics.

The all-female focus group provided some evidence that there is a link between political interest/participationand life stage and responsibilities. The parents amongthe participants appeared to be more knowledgeableand informed about politics and more inclined to vote. In particular, they identified with policies from the ScottishExecutive on education and health, two services that areclosely related to children. Several had actually contacteda Councillor or MSP about the issue.

There may be several reasons for this. Perhaps beingmothers has led them to be more involved in thecommunity where they live, for example through thecommunity services set up to provide for their children in their area. In this respect, the network of servicesestablished for their children may perhaps also provide a basis for young parents to become more involved inpolitical issues. If they were not mothers, arguably theywould still be at a stage in their ‘life cycle’ where they had less responsibility:

We’re 18 to twenty-something. If we don’t have kidswe’re not really involved in the community or part of the community. We’re at an age where we’re outsidethe community. We’re out drinking. We’re out having a laugh. We’re actually part of our surroundings so why should we vote?Edinburgh, female, 18–24, low income, renting

This therefore poses an interesting question about how to get young people at a stage in their lives where they mayhave less responsibility in their lives to vote? The all-malegroup was by far the least inclined to vote in 2003 andalso appeared least interested in politics per se. Fewwere parents. While they may not vote in an election,most had voted for a contestant in the Big Brothertelevision programme. Indeed, comparison with BigBrother was used by some to illustrate how politics is viewed as irrelevant:

What was it, 5 million people turned out for Big Brother. I don’t know what the statistics was from the government but there was a hell of a lot more for Big Brother. The same with the last generalelection, it was only something like 65% of theelectorate actually voted. If you’re comparing that to Big Brother 85% of the electorate voted for Big Brother because it was something that came from their level compared to the election.Glasgow, male, 18–24, low income, renting

Asked why they might vote in Big Brother and not in an election, responses focused on being able to relate to the contestants in the house and seeing a result as a direct consequence of their vote. Big Brother is also anexample of a topic that this group feel comfortable talkingabout socially with their friends and one they are able totake an interest in:

It was not, in a sense, easy to understand but it wassomething that people can relate to. Right now thegovernment is something you can’t really relate to, just you being a citizen, you really can't relate to the government. Half the time they won’t notice.Glasgow, male, 18–24, low income, renting

It’s exciting, it’s just you get more of a result at the end of it.Glasgow, male, 18–24, low income, renting


57

Scotland votes?: understanding voting

Understanding voting

In order to help our understandingof why people do not vote, it is auseful exercise to consider whypeople do vote. The qualitativeresearch identified several themes,which are useful when consideringhow to encourage more people to vote:

• parental influence;• women’s rights;• the tradition of voting;• the principle of voting;• wanting to ‘be part of it’;• spontaneous voting.

Parental influenceThis is a key theme and came up across the programmeof focus groups. It draws some interesting comparisonsacross generations. Older people (those aged 25+) tend to cite parental influence as a strong influence in motivating them to vote, and often in terms of which party to chose:

I was brought up always to vote. That's the way I was brought up!Dundee, 35–45, income up to £15,499, usually vote

but not certain to in 2003

I think it’s very much like football, who your parentssupported. Quite often if you don’t have an interest inpolitics then you will just follow suit and you will votethe same as well.Peebles, 25–34

For older groups, voting was even seen as a significantlife-event in adulthood, part of ‘coming of age’. However,being able to vote would appear not to have the samesignificance among younger people:

To be honest with you, it did make a wee bit of adifference but mostly when my parents were votingthey usually told me when I come to 18, they usuallysaid to me ‘Right you’re voting as well. You comedown at the exact same time as us.’ It was more orless me just following them down and just doing thevoting and that’s it. That’s the way I thought of it. Ithought it was just a matter of going there, vote, leave,all done, over and done with.Peebles, 25–34

I see it as a duty. It’s the way you've been brought up.You’re saying no. Fair enough but I always asked them‘Where are you going?’ ‘We’re just going to vote.’ Awayback they wouldn’t tell us. ‘Your time will come.’ It wasa life of duty. It’s what you were brought up to. Peebles, 45–60, income £15,500+, usually vote but not certain

to in 2003

58


I think your parents were always ‘must vote, must vote,no matter what’. I could probably say I could go up anystreet and speak to ten people and probably only 1%of them voted last year, of my age group. I think yourparents instilled in to you ‘you've got to vote, don’t give up your vote, a wasted vote’ and all this kind of thing but you don’t actually hear peoplespeaking like that any more. It comes round toelections and it probably comes out in conversation‘you voting tonight?’ ‘Oh yes, that's right, what else are you doing tonight?’ It’s not a big thing now.Kilmarnock, 25–34

While younger people also cite parental influence, itwould appear that this influence no longer acts as amotivational factor to voting in the same way as it did for older people. For example, in the following case,parental influence appears to be acting as a de-motivating factor (not understanding politics and thelanguage used are also cited as contributory factors):

See when I turned 18, see for my first time voting, mydad actually told me because I didn’t understand aword. I tried to, with it being my first vote. I was deadexcited, first time voting. I tried to, listen in to see whatwas going on and all that but I didn’t have a clue. Mydad had to actually tell me which was the best one tovote for in his eyes. I didn’t actually vote and I’ve gotdifferent opinions from my dad. He's a snob. I don’tvote at all because I don’t understand it so there's nopoint. There’s no point in me going in and voting forsomething I don’t know. Glasgow, male, 18–24, low income, renting

Another possible reason for parental influence not havingthe same influence may be the growing disillusionmentapparent among some older participants in this research.If some parents who would normally have voted in thepast are beginning to question why they should vote, thismay have a detrimental effect on their encouraging theirchildren to do likewise:

My parents didn’t always vote but I think it’s just a case of putting your cross down. They’ve been totally

disillusioned with the people they’re voting for. Theyused to scream at you to vote. They used to pick upthe elderly in cars that couldn’t go out to vote. I don’tknow if they still do that but they used to go to theirhouse so that they could vote. I don’t know if they stilldo that. Now it’s like if we don’t vote it doesn’t matter.Nobody comes to you ‘you never voted?’Dundee, 35–45, income up to £15,499, usually vote but


Women’s rightsAmong women, one possible motivation for voting isbased on the history of the ‘struggle’ to get the vote. This was a theme raised by younger and older womenalike and, in some cases, provides quite an emotivemotivation to vote. Current voters are particularly inclined to mention this:

I do think that women did a lot for the women of the future. I think just try and learn a little bit about it just so you can actually say that as a thank you. It’s also a feeling of the fact that you’re doing something for the future. You’re standing up and being independent,yourself putting a vote out there.Edinburgh, 18–24, low income, renting

That is the one thing, this sounds really silly but I wasborn with that right to vote, so that's my right to vote, so I vote. Especially as a woman. A lot of women really,really suffered and things for me to get my vote so Ifeel I will vote and hopefully maybe one day my votewill make a difference and plus the fact if you don’tvote then you really can’t, in my view, you can't reallywhinge when things don’t go your way. Dundee, 35–45, income £15,499, usually vote, not certain, in 2003

This draws an interesting comparison with male voters’motivations. Arguably, ‘women’s rights’ is still an issuerelevant to women in today’s society and perhapsdrawing attention to how universal suffrage was obtainedmay bring more women to use their vote. The equivalentmotivator for men, of men ‘struggling’ to be enfranchised,appears to be less relevant.

59


The tradition of votingThere is a perception among some that there may be a generational difference, with the ‘tradition’ of votingbecause of ‘always having voted’ given as a possiblereason for why older people are more likely to vote thanthe young. This might mean that younger generations arerelatively more inclined to question why they should vote:

It’s like going to church. Older people, I think, like goingdown the polling station. There’s a sense of almosttradition in it. You see the wee old grannies and they’rejust standing there and they all stand and they congregate.Edinburgh, female, 18–24, low income, renting

I think you'll find that older people like pensioners and what not will vote because they think it’s the rightthing to do because that’s the way it’s always been.Younger people have their own view. If they want to,they will, if they don’t, they don’t. The older generationthink that’s the thing you should do. Peebles, 25–34

The principle of votingThe principle of voting is perhaps best defined as either a ‘civic duty’, or the idea that electors are not able to‘complain’ justifiably about policy outcomes if they have not voted in an election. These views are commonamong those who usually vote some of whom appear to vote largely out of habit, rather than out of a sense of purpose or commitment to the prospect of anythinghappening as a result of their vote. In the examplesprovided below, voting is viewed as the ‘right thing to do’even if it is perceived to be likely to make little difference:

You feel as if you've done the right thing but at the end of the day you know it’s not going to make anydifference because certain ones are going to get inevery time. That's because of your wealthy peoplecoming in and voting for what they’re wanting.Peebles, 45–60, income £15,500+, usually vote but not

certain to in 2003

You have to vote. How can you argue about it if you've not voted? You can't moan if you've not made the effort.Peebles, 45–60, income £15,500+, usually vote not

certain to in 2003

Wanting to ‘be part of it’Another motivation for voting is ‘wanting to be part of it’ in terms of voting for a party as a way of supporting its policies or taking part when there is a ‘close’ contestor a feeling of ‘change’. The latter was a reason given by many group participants for voting at the 1997 UK general election and an explanation of why they are less inclined to vote now:

I vote because I feel that for the pensioners things are going to be improved, the health service will be improved.Dundee, 35–45, income up to £15,499, usually vote but


I think you'll find that more people vote when it’s timefor change. When the Tories were in for their eighteenyear stint, there would be a high turnout, I wouldanticipate, to get Labour in, because they wantedchange. They didn’t want Labour in as opposed toTories, they wanted change. We get bored with thesame people. Labour will be voted out, if not the nextelection, the next again, no matter how good they do.People just want change. What is that other side like?Maybe they’re going to be better. You can’t have thesame government all the time unless it is back to thecommunist type idea, one party that's there all the time.Peebles, 25–34

60


Spontaneous votingIn some cases, the decision to vote may be made at thelast minute, even on election day itself. This may be seenas the classic case of the ‘floating voter’ who is not surewho to vote for, or even whether or not to vote. In thesecircumstances, the commitment and motivation to vote is invariably weak, and whether to vote may be decidedby last-minute considerations such as a ‘feeling’ on theday, the weather, or the inconvenience (particularly, thetime it takes) of going to the polling station:

If something made a dramatic impact then you might,at the time, say ‘oh well I agree with that, I’m going togo’. It all depends how I feel at the time. It’s alwaysbeen the same anyway, if it’s Scottish or English, everysingle election that’s ever been I’m like ‘oh well whatdifference does it make’ sometimes and then there'ssometimes I’ll say ‘yes I agree with that, I'm going togo along with that’. It’s whatever at the time. Peebles, 25–34

61

Scotland votes?: what do people think can be done to improve turnout?

What do people think can be done to improve turnout?MORI Scotland asked the focusgroup participants to make somesuggestions for what could bedone to encourage more people to vote. These were:

• politicians to ‘get the vote out’;• building engagement with

younger people;• an information-based campaign;• using the education system to

build awareness and knowledge;• making it easier to vote.

Politicians to ‘get the vote out’There is a perception that politicians are less engagedwith the electorate than they have been in the past. This is related to the sense, mentioned previously, that thepolitical process and its parties are not ‘delivering’ andthat people cannot relate to their elected representatives.Some mention a decline in ‘canvassing’ at election time asan example of how politicians are less likely to come andmeet them at ‘street level’ and seek to motivate them to vote.At the same time as greater visibility, people want to seepoliticians presenting them with positive reasons to vote:

[They should] get out and about. We were saying,before they were all in the cars and the loud speakers and all the rest.Edinburgh, female, 18–24, low income, renting

Even if they came to your door themselves and had a conversation and then handed you a leaflet...[Now]they’re just assuming you know what it’s about.Edinburgh, female, 18–24, low income, renting

They should come round and say ‘I’m holding ameeting on such and such a date at a communitycentre and here’s what I've done and do you agreewith that?’ They should come to us and say this is what we’ve done.Kilmarnock, 35–45, income up to £15,499, usually vote,

but not certain to in 2003

[In the past] I think basically they were more involvedwith the folk. Yes I would probably vote, but then theway I see it is it’s just… I think they felt a bit morepassionate about what they were doing. They weregoing round people’s doors and actually standing out in the middle of a shopping centre. That’s whatthey should be doing, standing in the local shoppingcentre and meeting local people. I think that’s the wayto go. They’ve got to be more face on with us, then I’ll be more face on with them and I’ll vote.Edinburgh, female, 18–24, low income, renting

62


Building engagement with young peopleMany older people perceive younger people as beingless inclined to vote and link this indifference to lowerengagement with politics among the young. Somesuggest one way to try and encourage younger people to vote is for politicians to be more active in engagingwith younger people. It is also suggested that theScottish Parliament needs to better reflect the society it seeks to represent:

I think the politicians have got to get on a level ofthinking with the younger folk. There are some youngpoliticians but... you need to bring in some new faces.Bring the age limit down so they can think…I think a lotof the youngsters turn round and say ‘they don’t needmy vote, they’re going to win without my vote’, I thinkthat's basically the way they think.Peebles, 45–60, income £15,500+, usually vote, not certain

in 2003

An information-based campaignSeveral groups suggested a campaign to encouragepeople to vote. This should be based on providinginformation to explain what will be happening at theScottish election. It was also suggested that it shouldpositively demonstrate what the Scottish Parliament hasachieved since its establishment (in addition to settingout realistic goals to ensure peoples’ expectations arekept realistic), as well as how the election will work (and, in particular, its PR element):

Campaign based on making it work? Everyone wantsthe Scottish Parliament for the Scottish Parliament’ssake, just to say we’ve got a Scottish Parliament. It’s more ‘we’ve got a Scottish parliament’ than ‘we’ve got a Scottish Parliament that did [anything].’Dundee, 35–45, income up to £15,499, usually vote but not

certain to in 2003

The Scottish elections, I think they need to sing thepraises and tell people what they’ve actually achieved,if anything. They’ve got to highlight that fact and alsobroadcast what they plan to do, realistic expectations,people can say ‘right OK’ but they’ve done it before

and it hasn’t worked. They have to let us know whatthey have actually achieved because then people cansay ‘oh right it has worked on this, this and this, so if I keep voting then hopefully… Glasgow, student, 20–25, renting

Put more publicity in to what they’ve actually achievedin the five years it’s been going and what the ScottishParliament has achieved as opposed to what’s beenachieved along with Westminster.Peebles, 25–34

[The Scottish Parliament] have to give us realisticgoals now. They’ve been in three, four years, they have to give us realistic goals now. We have to seethem achieving them. Glasgow, student, 20–25

As already mentioned, many participants, in particularyounger people, cite the language of politics as a barrierto their understanding what is happening in the ScottishParliament. Combined with a perception of negativecampaigning, this may cause some confusion as to what is happening in the Scottish Parliament and prove to be off-putting:

Spell it out for me. It’s not that I haven’t tried to follow it,I understand the main concept and stuff and what folkare trying to do but I’ve seen no proof from anybody. All you ever hear about is this party’s going to do this,this party’s going to do that, and you only ever hearabout things if it’s something that’s went wrong. They don’t tell you…you don’t hear ‘oh yes they’ve done this’. All it is, is criticism from party to party so you never see the final result if this did happen or not.At the end of the day all I've been taught is what they’re all fighting about.Edinburgh, female, 18–24, low income, renting

Information on the Scottish Parliament is also viewed as a good way to try and manage expectations. This ties in with people’s explanations of why the turnout at thereferendum in 1997 was higher than the actual election to the Scottish Parliament in 1999. It was felt that the

63


referendum campaign was very emotive, something whichencouraged people to vote, in contrast to the Parliamentelections in 1999 based along ‘normal’ party politics andlacking motivational and information-based elements:

If you feel informed enough to vote, I think maybe, I’m just guessing, but half the people that voted in the referendum were uninformed, just again the William Wallace idea of things. If people felt moreinformed then they would be likely to vote.Kilmarnock, 25–34

There were also several suggestions for ways in which a possible campaign may be conducted, from advertisements on television or in papers, and via leaflets through doors:

I think I need to be told more about what’s actuallyhappening in the Parliament. There needs to be some kind of broadcast, not at 11 at night, but at areasonable time that you could flick on to. Not whenCoronation Street or anything’s on! Reasonableinformation, even a page in one of the broadsheets,you can look at it if you want to look at it, if you don’t,you don’t. To be honest, the only thing I ever get tohear about the Scottish Parliament is scandal or what’s happening or what’s not happening. I don’t ever get to hear any positives. There needs to bemore positive things coming out.

Kilmarnock, 25–34

Even a wee newsletter popped through, handdelivered. It doesn’t cost them a lot to print up a two page thing just the things that are happening and pop it through the houses in Scotland.Peebles, 25–34

Using the education system to buildawareness and knowledgeRelated to the use of an information-based campaign, it was suggested that a longer-term approach would be to include politics as part of the curriculum at school(reflecting, in part, some awareness of the recent

inclusion of Modern Studies as a compulsory part of the high school curriculum and citizenship as one of five ‘National priorities’).

Parents with young children of pre-school age wereparticularly supportive of using education to build politicalknowledge and participation. It is suggested that schoolsmight focus on providing a better understanding of the‘basics of politics’ including how elections work, how youare represented and what the main contemporary politicalissues are. Lessons might also be used to instil a firmersense of civic duty when it comes to voting at elections,especially since parental influence in encouragingyounger people to vote is thought to be declining:

I think they try and confuse you too much. They shouldteach politics at school because you’re entitled toknow. It’s your vote, it’s your right.Edinburgh, female, 18–24, low income, renting

They need to aim it to a younger generation anyway. If they’re not going to teach it younger, you’re notgoing to understand it younger. When they get olderyou’re just going to end up with no votes.Edinburgh, female, 18–24, low income, renting

Making it easier to voteAs mentioned previously, the reasons given for not voting tend to be motivational with ‘barriers’ to voting of secondary importance. However, when consideringsuggestions for encouraging more people to vote,circumstantial reasons become more predominant. One of the most common suggestions is for a postal vote which is viewed as a way to reduce the ‘hassle’ of having to walk to the polling station:

You can get a postal vote.Edinburgh, female, 18–24, low income, renting

A postal vote! When you get your card through thedoor it should be stamped with a free post address on it, you cross one box, or you can go and hand it in at the polling station. If you do that you just get aticket and stick it in the mail box. I think that would

64

probably bring a lot of people back to voting.Dundee, 35–45, income up to £15,499, usually vote but


Alternative methods of voting would appear to be mostpersuasive among those already less inclined to vote.However, perhaps one of the main audiences for usingalternative methods is younger people, many of whomalready have experience of text message voting (fortelevision programme voting) and are probably bestplaced for, and most receptive to, the use of new forms of communications technology:

Young people today are so obsessed with computers, if not, like a phone voting, like a password orsomething. You wouldn’t have to leave the house.Edinburgh, female, 18–24, low income, renting

65

Scotland votes?: references

References

Bromley, C. and McCrone, D. (2002) ‘A nation ofregions?’, in Curtice, J. et al., New Scotland, NewSociety?, Polygon, Edinburgh.

The Electoral Commission (2002) Voter Engagement andYoung People, The Electoral Commission, London.

Constitution Unit/The Electoral Commission (2002)Turnout in the 2001 and 2002 Elections: what can be done to reverse the general decline?, The Electoral Commission, London.

Heath, A. and Taylor, B. (1999) ‘New sources ofabstention’, in Evans, G. and Norris, P. (eds) CriticalElections: British parties and voters in long termperspective, Sage, London.

Johnston, R. and Pattie, C. (2002) ‘Voters and non-votersin 2001’, in Turnout in the 2001 and 2002 Elections: whatcan be done to reverse the general decline?,The Electoral Commission, London.

Norris, P. (2001) ‘Apathetic landslide: the 2001 Britishgeneral election’, Parliamentary Affairs, 54, 4.

Norris, P. (2002) Democratic Phoenix: reinventing politicalactivism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Park, A. (1999) ‘Young people and political apathy’, inBritish Social Attitudes: the 16th report, Ashgate, Aldershot.

Paterson, L. et al. (2001) New Scotland, New Politics?,Polygon, Edinburgh.

Whiteley, P. et al. (2001) ‘Turnout’, Parliamentary Affairs, 54, 4.

66

Scotland votes?: appendix 1

Appendix 1 – Survey detailsThe cross-sectional surveys cited in this report weremulti-stage cluster samples, stratified at the cluster level,and drawn from the electoral register until 1992 and from 1997 from the Postcode Address File. Data werecollected by face-to-face interviews in respondents’homes, computer-aided from 1997. Full details of thesampling design etc. are reported in the appendices of Paterson et al. (2001) and Curtice et al. (2002).

The response rates were at least 60% and usuallybetween 65% and 70%.

The Scottish Social Attitudes Survey achieved samples of 1,482 in 1999 and 1,663 in 2000.

The Scottish Election Survey achieved samples of 729 in 1979, 957 in 1992 and 882 in 1997.

The Scottish Referendum Survey of 1997 achieved a sample of 676.

The surveys have been funded mainly by the UK ESRC (Economic and Social Research Council) and its predecessors, and have been run mostly by theNational Centre for Social Research (formerly SCPR). The survey data can be obtained from the Data Archiveat Essex University.

67


Appendix 2 –Constituency turnout in 1999Constituency turnout at the 1999 Scottish Parliament elections

Below average <59%

Low

Glasgow Shettleston 40.6

Glasgow Maryhill 40.8

Glasgow Springburn 43.8

Glasgow Kelvin 46.3

Glasgow Baillieston 48.3

Glasgow Govan 49.5

Aberdeen C 50.3

Aberdeen N 51.0

Dundee W 52.2

Glasgow Anniesland 52.4

Glasgow Cathcart 52.6

Glasgow Pollock 54.4

Kirkcaldy 54.9

Banff & Buchan 55.1

Dundee E 55.3

Hamilton S 55.4

Fife C 55.8

Cunninghame S 56.1

Gordon 56.5

Paisley N 56.6

Edinburgh C 56.7

Airdrie & Shotts 56.8

Glasgow Rutherglen 56.9

Dunfermline E 56.9

Orkney 57.0

Paisley S 57.1

Aberdeen S 57.3

Moray 57.5

Angus 57.7

Motherwell & Wishaw 57.7

Dunfermline W 57.8

Hamilton N & Bellshill 57.8

Coatbridge & Chryston 57.9

Edinburgh N & Leith 58.2

Roxburgh & Berwickshire 58.5

Shetland 58.8

Aberdeenshire W & Kincardine 58.9

Livingston 58.9

Greenock & Inverclyde 59.0

Fife NE 59.0

Above average >59%

Cunninghame N 60.0

Clydesdale 60.6

Dumfries 60.9

Perth 61.3

Falkirk E 61.4

Edinburgh E & Musselburgh 61.5

Midlothian 61.5

Tayside N 61.6

Dumbarton 61.9

Cumbernauld & Kilsyth 62.0

Linlithgow 62.3

Western Isles 62.3

East Kilbride 62.5

Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross 62.6

Edinburgh S 62.6

Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley 62.7

Falkirk W 63.0

Inverness E, Nairn & Lochaber 63.1

Ross, Skye & Inverness W 63.4

Clydebank & Milngavie 63.6

Kilmarnock & Loudoun 64.0

East Lothian 64.2

Ochil 64.6

Argyll & Bute 64.9

Renfrewshire W 64.9

Tweeddale, Ettrick & Lauderdale 65.4

Edinburgh Pentlands 66.0

Ayr 66.5

Galloway & Upper Nithsdale 66.6

Strathkelvin & Bearsden 67.2

Edinburgh W 67.3

Eastwood 67.5

Stirling 67.7

High

68


Appendix 3 – Modelling details

(a) 1999/2001 modelsLogistic regression models were constructed from the 1999 SPES and 2001 SSAS using the followingdependent variables. Significant results are highlighted in bold, with direction of effect given in last column.

[voted]

Did you vote in the Scottish Parliamentary election?(0 = would not vote, 1 = would vote)

1999 SPES

[voteukf]

Would you have voted had there been a 1999 UK general election?(0 = did not vote, 1 = voted)

1999 SPES

[voteref]

Did you vote in the Referendum of 1997?(0 = did not vote, 1 = voted)

1999 SPES

[vote99]

Did you vote in the Scottish Parliamentary election in 1999?(0 = did not vote, 1 = voted)

2001 SSAS

[votespf]

If there had been an election to the Scottish Parliament on the 7th of June, [would you] have voted?(0 = would not vote, 1 = would vote)

2001 SSAS

[voted01]

Did you manage to vote in the UK general election? (0 = did not vote, 1 = voted)

2001 SSAS

Note: Reference category (where applicable) in brackets.

69


Variables B S.E. Sig. Effect

Constant -1.495 .471 .002

Gender .056 .157 .722

Age .041 .005 .000 Positive

Class (working class) .252

Salariat -.152 .227 .501

Routine non-manual -.058 .220 .792

Petty bourgeoisie -.394 .284 .165

Manual foremen/supervisors -.551 .268 .040 Negative

Education (no qualification) ..005

Degree .990 .324 .002 Positive

Higher education .266 .260 .308

Highers -.078 .260 .764

‘O’ Grades .210 .224 .349

CSE -.424 .282 .133

Tenure (Other rented) ..001

Owns/mortgage 1.095 .281 .000 Positive

Rents: LA 1.095 .303 .000 Positive

Rents: HA .705 .397 .076

Income (£35,000 +) .015

Under £10,000 -.803 .299 .007 Negative

£10,000 - £19,999 -.518 .274 .059

£20,000 - £34,999 -.104 .273 .704

Log Likelihood = 1204.209

% cases correctly predicted = 72.5

VOTED

Dependent variable: Did you vote in the Scottish Parliamentary election?Independent variables: age; education; gender; occupational class (Goldthorpe Heath grouped classes); tenure; total household income (banded).Source: Scottish Parliamentary Election Survey, 1999Number of cases in model: 1139NB positive effects = voted.

(b) 1999 modelsSignificant results are highlighted in bold, with directions of effect given in the last column.

70



Constant -.125 .679 .854

Gender -.479 .231 .038 Negative



Salariat -.054 .321 .867

Routine non-manual .025 .314 .936

Petty bourgeoisie .083 .425 .846

Manual foremen/supervisors -.171 .358 .632

Education (no qualification) .056

Degree 1.067 .482 .027 Positive

Higher education .855 .411 .038 Positive

Highers .050 .356 .887

‘O’ Grades .134 .309 .664

CSE -.328 .365 .369

Tenure (Other rented) .052

Owns/mortgage .899 .350 .010 Positive

Rents: LA .972 .381 .011 Positive

Rents: HA .705 .497 .156

Income (£35,000 +) .059

Under £10,000 -1.060 .473 .025 Negative

£10,000 - £19,999 -.656 .441 .137

£20,000 - £34,999 -.240 .448 .592



Dependent variable: Would you have voted had there been a 1999 UK general election?Independent variables: age; education; gender; occupational class (Goldthorpe Heath grouped classes); tenure; total household income (banded).Source: Scottish Parliamentary Election Survey, 1999Number of cases in model: 1,100NB positive effects = voted.

VOTEUKF

71



Constant -1.023 .459 .026

Gender -.140 .154 .364



Salariat -.353 .222 .112

Routine non-manual -.303 .218 .164

Petty bourgeoisie -.280 .285 .326

Manual foremen/supervisors -.079 .278 .776


Degree .827 .302 .006 Positive

Higher education .625 .263 .018 Positive

Highers .375 .265 .157

‘O’ Grades -.043 .215 .843

CSE .087 .295 .766



Rents: LA .740 .295 .012 Positive

Rents: HA .248 .385 .520

Income (£35,000 +) .139

Under £10,000 -.498 .290 .086

£10,000 - £19,999 -.059 .268 .825

£20,000 - £34,999 -.133 .257 .605



VOTEREF

Dependent variable: Did you vote in the Referendum of 1997?Independent variables: age; education; gender; occupational class (Goldthorpe Heath grouped classes); tenure; total household income (banded).Source: Scottish Parliamentary Election Survey, 1999Number of cases in model: 1,113NB positive effects = voted.

72



Constant

Gender .117 .165 .478


Class (routine occupations) .903

Employers, higher prof/managerial -.020 .400 .961

Lower prof/managerial .168 .285 .555

Intermediate -.008 .299 .977

Small employers/own account -.352 .390 .366

Lower supervisory/technical -.134 .280 .631

Semi-routine occupations .019 .231 .935


Degree .311 .336 .355


Highers .119 .284 .674

‘O’ Grades .019 .242 .938

CSE .354 .270 .190



Rents: LA .462 .318 .146

Rents: HA .272 .412 .510

Income (£35,000 +) .001

Under £10,000 -1.181 .334 .000 Negative

£10,000 - £19,999 -.540 .315 .086

£20,000 - £34,999 -.496 .308 .108

Residence (10 years +) .073

0-2 years -.325 .227 .153

3-9 years .148 .197 .453



Dependent variable: Did you vote in the Scottish Parliamentary election in 1999?Independent variables: : age; education; gender; length of residence in current home; occupational class (NS-SEC analytic classes); tenure; total household income (banded).Source: Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, 2001Number of cases in model: 1,003NB positive effects = would have voted.

VOTE99

73



Constant .062 .593 .916

Gender .147 .172 .393



Employers, higher prof/managerial -.108 .405 .789


Intermediate .425 .321 .185

Small employers/own account .328 .442 .458

Lower supervisory/technical .366 .298 .219

Semi-routine occupations .270 .233 .246


Degree .616 .359 .087


Highers .376 .300 .211

‘O’ Grades .054 .250 .829

CSE .159 .272 .559


Owns/mortgage -.003 .313 .992

Rents: LA -.049 .326 .881

Rents: HA -.092 .438 .834

Income (£35,000 +) .149

Under £10,000 -.810 .370 .029 Negative

£10,000 - £19,999 -.767 .348 .028 Negative

£20,000 - £34,999 -.665 .343 .052


0-2 years -.180 .242 .458

3-9 years -.056 .207 .788



Dependent variable: Would you have voted in a Scottish Parliament election?Independent variables: age; education; gender; length of residence in current home; occupational class (NS-SEC analytic classes); tenure; totalhousehold income (banded).Source: Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, 2001Number of cases in model: 1,044 NB positive effects = would have voted.

VOTESPF

74


Constant -1.160 .499 .020

Gender .095 .149 .522



Employers, higher prof/managerial .123 .357 .731


Intermediate .484 .277 .080

Small employers/own account -.110 .349 .752

Lower supervisory/technical .449 .262 .087

Semi-routine occupations .416 .209 .046 Positive


Degree .503 .305 .099


Highers .417 .265 .115

‘O’ Grades .148 .224 .509

CSE .567 .251 .024 Positive


Owns/mortgage .389 .272 .153

Rents: LA -.057 .289 .843

Rents: HA -.388 .380 .308

Income (£35,000 +) .369

Under £10,000 -.447 .295 .130

£10,000 - £19,999 -.366 .271 .177

£20,000 - £34,999 -.136 .267 .610


0-2 years -.532 .207 .010 Negative

3-9 years -.195 .176 .269



Dependent variable: Did you vote in the UK general election?Independent variables: age; education; gender; length of residence in current home; occupational class (NS-SEC analytic classes); tenure; total household income (banded).Source: Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, 2001Number of cases in model: 1,128 NB positive effects = would have voted.

VOTESPF


The Electoral CommissionTrevelyan HouseGreat Peter StreetLondon SW1P 2HW

Tel 020 7271 0500Fax 020 7271 0505info@electoralcommission.org.ukwww.electoralcommission.org.uk

The Electoral Commission28 Thistle StreetEdinburgh EH2 1EN

Tel 0131 225 0200Fax 0131 225 [email protected]

We are an independent body that was set up by the UK Parliament. We aim togain public confidence and encouragepeople to take part in the democraticprocess within the United Kingdom by modernising the electoral process,promoting public awareness of electoralmatters, and regulating political parties.

© The Electoral Commission 2002ISBN: 1-904363-11-3

//

research report, december 2002 - electoral commission · people tend to mention lack of knowledge,...

Documents