Casting for a sovereign role: Socialising an aspirant state in the Scottish independence referendum
| Author | Juliet Kaarbo,Ryan K. Beasley |
| DOI | 10.1177/1354066116683442 |
| Published date | 01 March 2018 |
| Date | 01 March 2018 |
research-article2016
EJ R
I
Article
European Journal of
International Relations
Casting for a sovereign role:
2018, Vol. 24(1) 8 –32
© The Author(s) 2017
Socialising an aspirant state
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066116683442
DOI: 10.1177/1354066116683442
in the Scottish independence
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejt
referendum
Ryan K. Beasley
University of St Andrews, UK
Juliet Kaarbo
University of Edinburgh, UK
Abstract
This article examines international reactions to Scotland’s 2014 bid for independence
as an instance of socialisation of an aspirant state, what we term ‘pre-socialisation’.
Building on and contributing to research on state socialisation and role theory, this study
proposes a nexus between roles and sovereignty. This nexus has three components:
sovereignty itself is a role casted for by an actor; the sovereign role is entangled with the
substantive foreign policy roles the actor might play; and the sovereign role implicates the
substantive foreign policy roles of other actors. The Scottish debate on independence
provides an effective laboratory to develop and explore these theoretical dimensions of
pre-socialisation, revealing the contested value and meaning of sovereignty, the possible
roles that an independent Scotland could play, and the projected implications for the
role of the UK and other international actors. Our analysis of the Scottish case can
provide insights for other cases of pre-socialisation and is more empirically significant
following the UK’s 2016 referendum to leave the European Union.
Keywords
Role theory, Scottish independence, socialisation, sovereignty, United Kingdom
Corresponding author:
Ryan K. Beasley, University of St Andrews, Arts Faculty Building, The Scores, St Andrews, Scotland, KY16
9AX, UK.
Email: rb68@st-andrews.ac.uk
Beasley and Kaarbo
9
Introduction
In October 2012, Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond and UK Prime Minister David
Cameron signed the Edinburgh Agreement, allowing Scotland to hold an independence
referendum. The ensuing debate centred around the ‘Yes’ side, mainly the Scottish
National Party (SNP) (in power in the Scottish executive since 2007), versus the ‘No’
side (later changed to ‘No, thanks’), mainly the Better Together campaign (an umbrella
organisation). Although this matter was for eligible voters of Scotland to decide, external
actors also weighed in, contesting Scotland’s potential roles as a sovereign state. We
argue that the case demonstrates a crucial interplay between sovereignty and roles. This
is the first theoretically focused empirical analysis of the international dimension of the
Scottish referendum.
We focus on the period when the international community became interested in the
question of an independent Scotland (from 2012 to the 18 September 2014 vote).1
Previous moves increasing Scottish autonomy (including the 1997 referendum that
endorsed devolution) did not attract much international attention, but the political transi-
tion from seeking devolution to seeking independence highlighted for international
actors the importance of this case (Walker, 2014). A new Scottish state would have sig-
nificant implications for international institutions such as the European Union (EU) and
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the remainder of the UK, and other
independence movements. Although the ‘Yes’ side failed to achieve its independence
bid, the case is more salient following the 2016 British referendum to leave the EU
(‘Brexit’) vote, in which English and Welsh majorities favoured a departure while a sub-
stantial majority in Scotland voted to remain (BBC News, 2016a), reigniting independ-
ence discussions.
We use the Scottish case to develop a conception of socialisation prior to statehood
— what we term ‘pre-socialisation’ — which involves a fundamental interplay between
international conceptions of sovereignty and foreign policy roles. This sovereignty–role
nexus manifests itself in the pre-statehood period through role forecasting, where actors
contest the nature and value of sovereignty through the role transformations that could
hypothetically be produced in the event of statehood. This symbolic-interactionist
account of international state formation advances our understanding of both role theory
and state socialisation by viewing roles as constructed repositories of sovereignty within
international society. The Scottish case, in particular, isolates this by bracketing other
factors often associated with the establishment of statehood; there was no rejection of
international norms, no military conflict, and the bid for independence was accepted by
the home state. This analysis not only helps us understand the Scottish independence
referendum, but also has broader applicability to other independence movements, as well
as role transformations related to sovereignty.
Theoretical foundations of state socialisation
State socialisation is an important process in international relations, affecting: ‘the for-
mation and change of preferences; national identity formation; the creation, diffusion of,
and compliance with international norms; and the effects of international institutions’
10
European Journal of International Relations 24(1)
(Johnston, 2001: 489). Socialisation is referenced in a wide-ranging set of International
Relations (IR) theories. Neorealism, for example, includes socialisation as processes of
selection and competition in which anarchy moulds states into like units (e.g. Waltz,
1979; for discussion, see Alderson, 2001; Checkel, 2005; Thies, 2010b). Socialisation as
norm internalisation or adaptation is also an important part of liberal-oriented perspec-
tives, including regime theory, international legal approaches and rationalist institution-
alism (Alderson, 2001; Schimmelfennig, 2000). English School perspectives include
socialisation as the process by which the international society generates common inter-
ests, values and rules (Cantir, 2011; Checkel, 2005; Schimmelfennig, 2000). For con-
structivists like Wendt, socialisation is ‘a ubiquitous feature of interaction in terms of
which all identities and interests get produced and reproduced’ (Wendt, 1992: 403, fn 42;
see also Schimmelfennig, 2000).
Despite the importance of socialisation in IR theories, there are two significant limi-
tations to this research. First, most of these studies use norm-based definitions of
socialisation (for exceptions, see Cantir, 2011; Schimmelfennig, 2000). Second,
socialisation theories have almost exclusively assumed the existence of states as their
starting point. Once states come into existence, theorists differ with regard to how they
are socialised into the international order, but socialisation efforts prior to statehood
— pre-socialisation — are not specified. This leaves important factors unexamined,
such as the relationship of sovereignty to socialisation and the process of constructing
agency prior to membership in international society. Departing from normative
approaches by using Thies’s argument that socialisation can be conceptualised as a
process of role location, we extend this approach by developing expectations about the
key features of pre-socialisation.
Socialisation: Norms and roles
In the influential special issue on socialisation in International Organization, Checkel
(2005: 804) defines socialisation as ‘a process of inducting actors into the norms and
rules of a given community. Its outcome is sustained compliance based on the internali-
zation of these new norms.’ This definition reflects what Johnston calls a general agree-
ment across the social sciences that socialisation is ‘social interaction that leads novices
to endorse “expected ways of thinking, feeling, and acting”’ (Johnston, 2001: 494, citing
Stryker and Statham, 1985: 325). English School-inspired research also conceptualises
socialisation as a process resulting in conformity to societal conventions (Armstrong,
1993: 7–8). Constructivist research embraces socialisation as norm internalisation,
examining the different mechanisms and effectiveness of socialisation efforts, particu-
larly in highly institutional contexts (e.g. Checkel, 2005; Flockhart, 2004).
Conceptualising socialisation as norm internalisation is problematic as it presents
too limited a vision: first, with regard to the potential for socialisation to fail; and, sec-
ond, with regard to the neglect of non-normative aspects. According to Thies (2003:
544), ‘the focus on internalisation is common in current international relations thinking
about socialisation, but … defining socialisation by the degree of internalisation has
generally been discarded in sociology’. This is because actors may simply adapt their
behaviour to comply with others’ expectations, but not internalise norms. Actors may
Beasley and Kaarbo
11
also completely reject socialisation efforts, even if there are high subsequent costs.
Defining socialisation more broadly, as ‘activity that confronts and lends structure to
the entry of non-members into an already existing world’ (Wentworth, 1980: 5, quoted
in Thies, 2010b: 694) or society — is more inclusive, and allows socialisation to fall
short of internalisation.
Thies (2003: 545) also argues that socialisation could involve norms, ‘but might also
include roles, beliefs, principles, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial