Negative stereotypes of the Scottish diet: A qualitative analysis of deep-fried Mars bar references in bestselling newspapers in Scotland, 2011-14

The 'Glasgow effect': the controversial cultural life of a public health term

The question of why more people in Glasgow were dying, and younger, compared with English cities with almost identical levels of deprivation, was a hot topic in Scottish public health debates in the early 21st century. Public health researchers, particularly the Glasgow Centre of Population Health (GCPH), used the terms 'Glasgow effect' and 'Scottish effect' as placeholders while identifying the unknown factors behind Scotland's excess mortality. Yet the terms took on a colourful life of their own in the press and larger culture and continue to circulate, despite GCPH's attempts to retire them. This paper is the first to analyse the cultural life of the 'Glasgow effect' and 'Scottish effect' terms. Looking primarily at the Scottish press 1998-2022, I analyse the politically charged and often controversial debates and lay recommendations around the concepts. I also trace the terms' parallel usage, and indeed origin, in contexts unrelated to health. I argue that the 'Glasgow effect' functions as a myth. This myth emphasises Scottish exceptionalism in public health and larger culture, at a time when devolution and the prospect of independence heightened optimism and anxiety about Scotland's future. It overlaps with a larger and longstanding myth of Scottish cultural pathology, or the pathological Scot. The flexibility of the 'Glasgow effect' and 'Scottish effect' terms is exploited by journalists, academics and artists to serve competing agendas, establish their own expertise and influence public opinion. While it may now be challenging to eradicate these terms, especially in lay contexts, researchers and policy makers should avoid using these unstable terms uncritically. The example of the 'Glasgow effect' shows how health concepts can become wrapped in larger national or political narratives and highlights the difficulties for public health communicators in introducing complex and emerging public health ideas into a dynamic landscape of lay beliefs.