Description
The United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union in 2016 generated major shock across both the UK and Europe, being felt particularly acutely in Scotland. Occurring only two years after a failed independence referendum in which European status played a decisive role, and with the Scottish people overwhelmingly voting to Remain, they were forced, alongside the rest of the UK, into Brexit. Existing research demonstrates how Brexit generated intense anxieties amongst Remainers and Leavers, along borders, in Westminster, and amongst the general population. Yet, despite the profundity of the referendum outcome for Scotland, scant attention has been paid to the navigation of this crisis. Empirically, drawing from parliamentary debates, policy documents, and press releases, we demonstrate the way Brexit became deeply entwined with how Scotland, under the secessionist-orientated Scottish National Party, performed its identity in contrast to the UK and, increasingly, in line with Europe. We identify concerted and, crucially, repeated efforts to have Scotland’s referendum vote ‘respected’, to be recognised as distinct political entity whose voice is heard during negotiations, and to permit Scotland a differentiated post-Brexit settlement. Yet, these efforts were consistently met with non-recognition and denial at Westminster, which promoted further, more strident efforts still. Ironically, this cyclical loop exacerbated – more powerfully each time – fundamental anxieties for the ‘Scottish’ self, including the very existence of the Scottish parliament. This, we term, an ‘ontological security paradox’: whereby recurrent ontological security-seeking activities unintentionally expose and sharpen the very anxieties they are intended to address. Unpacking the effect this has for both undermining and sustaining the ontological security of the Scottish self, we explore Scotland’s navigation of a prolonged crises, attending to an under-explored actor in ontological security studies – substates – and contribute to vital debates on the relationship between ontological (in)security, crisis and change
