Scotland's social mind will settle independence vote

Continue reading page |1 |2

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.

Continue reading page |1 |2

If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.

Have your say

Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.

Only personal subscribers may leave comments on this article

Subscribe now to comment.

All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.

If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.

Source: http://feeds.newscientist.com/c/749/f/10897/s/1c165ae2/l/0L0Snewscientist0N0Carticle0Cdn21380A0Escotlands0Esocial0Emind0Ewill0Esettle0Eindependence0Evote0Bhtml0DDCMP0FOTC0Erss0Gnsref0Fonline0Enews/story01.htm

greg giraldo bob hope mariano rivera mariano rivera dadt repeal comedy central roast neal schon