1. Citizenship After the Nation State (CANS) The United Kingdom

2. Context  The choice of regions Identity Identity Institutional asymmetry Institutional asymmetry Wealth Wealth  What a comparison of Scotland and Wales can tell us (and what it can’t)

3. Data  Fieldwork ICM, telephone ICM, telephone  Sample Scotland 914 Scotland 914 Wales 900 Wales 900

4. Operationalisation: DVs  Inter-regional solidarity Social solidarity (affinity) Social solidarity (affinity) Fiscal solidarity (state intervention, transfers) Fiscal solidarity (state intervention, transfers)  Political participation Perceived importance across levels Perceived importance across levels Actual turnout (region, state) Actual turnout (region, state)  Regional policy Regional policy control (5 areas) Regional policy control (5 areas) State-wide policy uniformity (4 areas) State-wide policy uniformity (4 areas)

5. Operationalisation: IVs  Identity Attachment, pride, Linz/Moreno Attachment, pride, Linz/Moreno  Regional institutional authority Perceived importance of decisions, regional influence (current and desired), who more concerned, independence scale Perceived importance of decisions, regional influence (current and desired), who more concerned, independence scale  Wealth Current, prospective assessments Current, prospective assessments

6. Hypotheses 1. Individuals with a greater sense of regional identity will feel a decreased sense of inter-regional solidarity (in terms of affinity and fiscal solidarity) 2. Individuals in regions with greater institutional autonomy will place greater emphasis on participation at the regional level, relative to the state level, and have greater tolerance for regional policy control and divergence 3. Individuals in wealthier regions will display decreased support for state-wide intervention and fiscal transfers to poorer regions, and likewise will be more tolerant of regional policy divergence

7. How unique are Scotland and Wales? Independent variables (% agree) ScotlandWales Region is nation 8370 Attachment to region 8069 Regional level most concerned 8182 Regional level should have most influence 8270 Want more powers/independence 5956

8. How unique are Scotland and Wales? Dependent variables (% agree) ScotlandWales Affinity to citizens in region 5046 State should intervene 7483 Importance of regional voting 6550 Voted last regional election 7866

9. Results  Territorial scale effects  Distinction among indicators Social not fiscal solidarity Social not fiscal solidarity Perceived importance of voting but not actual participation Perceived importance of voting but not actual participation  Devolution paradox  Relative importance of IVs

10. Scale effects: social solidarity I Affinity Neighbourhood Affinity Region Affinity State Affinity Europe Relative affinity AttachcitySc:.346** W:. 427**.208**.366**.122**.177**.118**.126**.050.143** Attachlocal.312**.329**.261**.344**.168**.192**.170**.183**.048.112** Attachregion.195**.261**.359**.448**.058.074*.051.113**.245**.278** Attachstate.184**.155**.101**.100**.365**.311**.148**.127** -.261** -.196** AtachEU.112**.048.082**.090**.271**.204**.443**.407** -.188** -.105** Relativeattach-.052.054.121**.214** -.307** -.198** -.104** -.020.380**.352**

11. Scale effects: social solidarity II Affinity Neighbourhood Affinity Region Affinity State Affinity Europe Relative affinity Importance local decisionsSc:.218** W:.197**.171**.258**.158**.116**.194**.161** -.013.103** Importance regional decisions.150**.141**.246**.254**.119**.082*.204**.160*.081**.133** Importance state decisions.068*.082*.106**.135**.272**.215**.231**.183** -.171** -.084* Importance EU decisions.077*.071*.038.097**.161**.171**.338**.321** -.121** -.077* Relative importance of decisions.075*.057.120**.117** -.158** -.124** -.042 -.020.241**.207**

12. Scale effects: participation I Importance local vote Importance region vote Importance state vote Importance EU vote Relative importance AttachcitySc:.173** W:.277**.085**.206**.156**.185**.085**.138** -.083**.033 Attachlocal.231**.271**.154**.250**.176**.194**.103**.181** -.030.069* Attachregion.170**.261**.158**.296**.098**.063.050.136**.059.239** Attachstate.134**.117**.055.033.268**.190**.084**.110** -.250** -.143** AttachEU.086**.094**.082*.168**.138**.197**.327**.431** -.066* -.012 Relativeattach-.021.087**.044.181** -.183** -.112** -.046.009..258**.285**

13. Scale effects: participation II Importance local vote Importance region vote Importance state vote Importance EU vote Relative importance Importance local decisions Sc:.547** W:.536**.456**.458**..354**.386**.364**.332**.108**.102** Importance regional decisions.466**.389**.623**.571**.366**.338**.402**.376**.278**.263** Importance state decisions.394**.303**.380**.262**.583**.543**.422**.363** -.234** -.242** Importance EU decisions.371**.294**.366**.343**.372**.364**.655**.599** -.010.010 Relative importance of decisions.045.086*.204**.304** -.231** -.194** -.053.019.490**.486**

14. Devolution paradox ScotlandWales Region should have most control 7572 Regional policy control on: Education6755 Health5754 Crime4832 Unemployment3930 Environment3937

15. Devolution paradox Regional Policy control scale Policy uniformity scale Relative attachment.255**.211** -.155** -.182** Region should influence.343**.340** -.284** -.291** Region more concerned.267**.244** -.167** -.154** Independence scale.379**.341** -.376** -.380**

16. Regional policy variation EducationHealthUnemploymentCrimeEnvironment Scotland.300**.279**.223**.229**.189** Wales.273**.253**.266**.229**.189**

17. State-wide policy uniformity TuitionElderlyYoung offenders Unemp’t Scotland-.216**-.200**-.231**-.248** Wales-.252**-.221**-.190**-.240**

18. Comparing independent variables  Scale effects present with identity, institutional authority  Wealth less useful, even for understanding fiscal autonomy …

19. Fiscal solidarity State should intervene Transfer money to poorer regions Region better off now Sc: -.031 W: -.107** -.008-.041 Region better off future -.085*-.061.026-.028

20. Multi-variate model  Impact of demographic variables Established impact on certain attitudes and behaviour Established impact on certain attitudes and behaviour Likely interaction with research question Likely interaction with research question  Independent impact of identity, institutions, wealth  Analysis on 6 DV indicators

21. Multi-variate results AffinityFiscal Attitudes re participation Participation Regional policy control Policyuniformity AgeGender Ethnic minority ReligionEducation Marital status Birth.044.057.003-.044-.047.036.019.064*-.003.005.011.025-.003.022-.018.015-.024-.008-.016-.008-.036.308**.029-.005.075**.131**.079**.027.167**.007.019.007.040.027-.045-.006-.017-.075**.001.021.004.047 AttachmentPrideDecisions Region should influence Independence Perceived wealth Scotland.245**.130**.070**.095**.084**.005.007-.085**.057-.018-.049-.043-.086**-.062*.097**.038.368**.038.159**.015.055*-.007.105**.098**.013.065*.038.088**.109**.013.145**.157**.177**.107**.034-.062**-.020-.038-.078**-.264**-.051-.121** Adj R 2.19.04.28.13.21.16

22. Multi-variate analysis 1. Impact of demographic variables 2. Place matters 3. Ranking of IVs 4. Conceptualisation of IVs and DVs 5. An incomplete model?