The Simple Psychology of no voting unionist Scots

Published 1 October 2024

The Simple Psychology of no voting unionist Scots

The debate surrounding Scottish independence is not just about politics; it’s about identity, security, and the very nature of change. For many Scots who vote to stay in the United Kingdom, the reasons are complex, rooted in a mix of emotional and practical considerations that go beyond any single policy or economic forecast. These individuals are not anti-Scottish; rather, they are making a decision based on their understanding of the world, their experiences, and their anxieties about the unknown. However, when we examine the deeper fears and concerns that keep them from embracing independence, we find that independence may actually offer the very stability and security they seek.

One of the key psychological drivers for those who oppose independence is risk aversion. Human beings, by nature, are wired to avoid uncertainty, and this is particularly true when it comes to major decisions like constitutional change. The concept of independence, while filled with promise, also presents a leap into the unknown. For some, the idea of leaving the United Kingdom feels like walking away from a known safety net into an uncertain future. The idea that Scotland might have to change its currency, renegotiate trade agreements, or find its footing on the international stage creates understandable anxiety.

Many voters who favour the union do so because they feel more secure with what they know. They have pensions tied to the UK system, businesses that depend on UK-wide markets, and they see the pound as a stable currency. Economic fears are real, especially in an era marked by global instability. When framed as a choice between certainty and potential disruption, it’s no wonder that some people choose to stay with the status quo. Yet, what many fail to recognize is that independence offers a chance to create greater financial security in the long term. With full control over its economy, Scotland could reinvest its vast resources—such as oil, gas, and renewable energy—into its own economy, securing the financial future of its people. Independence means fiscal autonomy, where Scotland could tailor its own tax policies, drive local business growth, and create a financial environment that serves Scottish needs first.

Another significant factor that holds back pro-independence votes is identity. For many Scots, their identity is not just Scottish, but British too. They feel a strong connection to the idea of the United Kingdom as a shared project, built on centuries of history. For these people, the union isn’t just an economic arrangement; it’s an emotional bond, one that they are hesitant to break. But identity need not be an all-or-nothing game. One can embrace a deep sense of Scottish identity without feeling the need to abandon a British identity altogether. Independence doesn’t mean erasing history or cultural ties. It simply means governing our own future, making decisions that reflect the will of the Scottish people, while still acknowledging the shared history and connections that exist with the rest of the UK.

The fear of uncertainty is also compounded by the way the independence debate is often framed in the media. For decades, the risks of independence have been emphasised, while the potential rewards are downplayed. Unionist arguments often centre on the dangers of leaving, focusing on what could be lost rather than what could be gained. This type of messaging is effective, because it taps into people's innate fear of loss. However, when you dig deeper, you realise that the risks of remaining in the union are just as significant, if not more so. Staying tied to a system where Scotland’s voice is often drowned out by the sheer size of England’s electorate has long-term consequences for Scotland’s political and economic future. Remaining in the UK doesn’t eliminate risk; it simply shifts it in a different direction.

A prime example of this is Brexit, where Scotland, despite voting overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union, was forced to leave because of a UK-wide vote. The democratic imbalance is clear. Even within the union, Scotland’s political preferences can be overruled by decisions made in Westminster. In contrast, independence offers the chance to rejoin the EU, restoring the economic and social benefits that come with European membership. For those who fear the uncertainty of leaving the UK, it’s worth considering the uncertainty we face by staying, where decisions about Scotland’s future are increasingly made without Scottish consent.

Understanding the reluctance to embrace independence also means understanding that people make decisions based on how information is framed for them. Psychologists call this framing bias, where the way a choice is presented affects how people respond to it. For years, the debate has been framed as a choice between the “safe” option of staying in the UK and the “risky” option of independence. But what if we flipped that narrative? What if we began to see staying in the union as the greater risk, one that limits Scotland’s potential and leaves our future tied to decisions made by others?

Ultimately, independence isn’t just for those who already believe in it. It offers a brighter, more secure future even for those who currently vote to remain in the union. It is a chance to create a Scotland that works for Scots, where decisions about the economy, healthcare, and education are made in Holyrood, not Westminster. It’s a chance to build a country that reflects our values, our identity, and our aspirations for the future.

The choice for Scotland isn’t between risk and security it’s about choosing who gets to define that security. Independence gives us the power to take control of our future, to create the stability and prosperity that many who currently vote for the union are searching for.