AMIDST the swirl of assertions and counter assertions as to whether an independent Scotland would be economically better or worse off, a more fundamental issue, that of identity and values, is arguably being overlooked.
But what is identity and why is it important? It is complex and multi-layered. Subjectively, individuals feel different senses of identity. Identity is deeply-ingrained, enduring and largely unconscious. Most aspects of identity are "internalised" from our social and cultural context during our early formative years rather than "chosen". This process transforms us, effectively, into different groups of people. The cultural psychologist Jerome Bruner talks of humans existing effectively as "localised species".
Identity is also characterised by a sense of personal and collective pride, the loss of which is devastating.
Collective identity and its values are hugely important in determining the character and quality of any society. In turn, our identity and values are determined by our formative experiences within a society. Collective identity, social cohesion and pride are important for wellbeing and quality of life.
These socio-psychological understandings help explain observations (for example by Joseph Stiglitz and Thomas Piketty) on the entrenched and increasing inequality worldwide and its damaging effects on individual and social well-being and economic effectiveness. Likewise, they help explain the damaging side effects of globalisation, of the loss of "social capital", or on the psychological damage ("affluenza") caused by individualistic competitive striving.
Sir Harry Burns, the former Chief Medical Officer, has highlighted the connection between these factors and the appalling health and social status of much of west-central Scotland (the "Glasgow effect"). Sir Harry is in favour of Scottish independence as the more likely means of addressing these problems.
Scottish identity is also complex and mixed (for example Gaelic versus Lowland) but still appears "definable and recognisable". Historically, it has been shaped by Presbyterianism and doctrines of original sin. This led to a culture and identity characterised by highly critical and self-critical voices and deference to an unforgiving God.
Presbyterianism also promoted plain living, individual practicality and conscientiousness. But it also promoted egalitarianism and social responsibility, predating socialist movements. This has also arguably contributed to what Nairn called our "self colonisation" within the Union.
But this identity is changing and disappearing (consider the day-to-day loss of native Scots and Gaelic languages), given our gradual assimilation by an anglicised and globalised culture. This is not all bad. But it has significant effects on our identity. This process has been evident over many years to incomers and returnees. It is less easy to be aware of this from within and many Scots assume our identity and culture is somehow an enduring given within the Union. It clearly is not.
By contrast, the dominant culture of England is increasingly of an individualistic, free-market, neo-liberalism. This has led to increasing inequality with its toxic effects, politically-driven austerity and a push to dismantle any form of the welfare state. It is also clear after 300 years of union that a small country like Scotland has not had and cannot have any significant impact on the "British" establishment.
In Scotland, given our values and identity, our political consensus is clearly centre-left and some such coalition would likely result post-independence. Many have further argued for a more transformative vison challenging the dominant UK, and global, belligerent, neo-liberal, socio-political order to strive for a fairer, more locally-democratic, healthier, globally responsible but also more entrepreneurial and productive society.
It seems clear a No vote would be ultimately a vote for the final disappearance of Scotland with its identity and values as any sort of meaningful entity beyond, perhaps, some tartan-clad province of northern Britain. Some for their own good reasons may prefer this option. Scotland has a choice.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article