Centuries of political union would end dramatically
if the Scots voted for independence from the UK. It's not just a
political fight: this is also a fascinating social psychological battle
for voice and identity that involves multiple political and national
groups. When the referendum is held, Scottish identity may prove more
crucial than all other factors.
The
issue has shot up the British political agenda after David Cameron –
Englishman, prime minister of the UK and leader of the Conservative
party – threw down the gauntlet to Alex Salmond – Scot, first minister
of Scotland and leader of the Scottish Nationalist party (SNP) – to
hold a yes/no referendum in Scotland on independence as soon as
possible. Salmond, however, wants the referendum to go ahead in 2014 –
possibly with a third option.
Distinctiveness
is important in this. The Conservatives are profoundly unionist: they
want Scotland to remain part of the UK. Cameron espouses unity through
the idea of "one-nation Conservatism", downplaying the distinctions
between the English – who form the majority of the UK population and
host the UK's Westminster parliament in London, on their territory –
and the Scots.
The tension between distinctiveness and solidarity is well known in social psychology.
Once we label people as belonging to separate groups we tend to
perceive the groups as more different from each other than they really
are. If we belong to one of those groups, we tend to readily identify
with it and value its distinctive culture and way of life.
In
this way, the very existence of the geographical, cultural and
political border between Scotland and England strengthens and
perpetuates the perception of larger differences than really exist
between the English and the Scots. What Salmond and the SNP have done
spectacularly well is to build an increasingly strong sense for the
Scots that Scotland is different and, more importantly, better.
Seeds of support
Our
work proposes a relationship between certain social-psychological
factors surrounding national identity and support for the SNP. We
analysed a 1989 survey of over 1000 16 to 19-year-olds who were then
approaching their first opportunity to vote in Kirkcaldy, Scotland.
It asked how they felt about the differences between England and
Scotland, how strongly they identified with Scotland, their views about
Scottish independence and voting intentions at the next election. At
the time, the Labour party was the dominant party in Scotland, Scottish
devolution was yet to come, and the Conservative – and English –
Margaret Thatcher was prime minister of the UK.
The
seeds of support for the SNP were starting to germinate, nourished by
two ingredients: a sense of injustice about how Scottish people were
being treated by the English – termed "relative deprivation" by social
psychologists – and identification with Scotland, what we refer to as
"social identity". These two factors fuelled the belief that Scotland
should manage its own resources and would do perfectly well without
England. We found those who held this belief, known as "social change
ideology", were significantly more likely to vote for the SNP.
Since
1989 the Scots have experienced Scottish devolution, become less
trusting of the Labour party (in part because Labour led the UK into
the Iraq war), and have increased their support for the SNP, which is
now the majority party within Scotland. Added to the potent, persisting
elements of relative deprivation, national identity and social change
ideology, the Scots have a further feature vital for independence:
political empowerment – known as "collective efficacy" in social
psychology. The SNP has shown the Scots that they can govern and that
the Scottish parliament is taken seriously by the English.
The rise of these social-psychological factors explains the current position. But what of the future and the referendum? Currently just under 40 per cent of Scots support independence. How might this change?
Double bind
The
SNP might prove more persuasive now, as it can maintain a more distinct
and consistent position than the other political parties in a
referendum campaign. Social psychological research shows that
distinctiveness and consistency can be persuasive because it attracts
closer attention. For the Labour and the Liberal Democrats parties,
sustaining consistency poses a dilemma. Independence is risky for them:
if Scotland becomes independent, these parties will lose all their
Scottish members of the Westminster parliament, seriously damaging
Labour's prospects of re-election at Westminster and reducing the
number of Liberal MPs there. However, if Labour and Liberal Democrat
members of the Scottish Parliament argue against independence, they may
risk being viewed as serving English rather than Scottish interests.
Research
shows very clearly that groups, in this case the Scots, react
negatively to disloyalty. If the SNP can successfully depict Labour and
the Liberal Democrats as disloyal to Scotland, this could also bolster
support for independence.
So
the referendum polarises the political scene, effectively pitting the
SNP against the rest. As a minority against the undifferentiated mass
of other political groups in the UK, the SNP is likely to stand out in voters' minds as the party that most clearly represents Scotland's interests to Scottish people, which we believe will produce a psychologically compelling motivation to vote for independence.
What
do we predict for the independence vote? Our 1989 respondents, now
Scotland's 40-year-olds and at an age where political engagement is
more likely, might notice strong parallels with conditions 22 years
ago: a UK Conservative government that is making substantial cuts and
has little or no representation in Scotland, yet appears to control
many Scottish resources and opportunities.
These
conditions may enhance Scottish identity and feelings of relative
deprivation, again driving support for the SNP. The value and status of
Scottish identity may increasingly become the central psychological
question, and the SNP might well surprise political observers by
achieving a majority "yes" vote in the 2014 referendum.
Profile
Dominic Abrams is a social psychologist at the University of Kent, UK . Peter Grant is a social psychologist at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, Canada. Their paper, "Testing the social identity relative deprivation (SIRD) model of social change: The political rise of Scottish nationalism", was published in the British Journal of Social Psychology (DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02032.x) last year.http://www.newscientist.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment